UC-NRLF 


B    3    IID    3TM 


iipi 


wsm 


-iim^ 


The  Trade  of  the  Delaware  District 
Before  the  Revolution 


A  Dissertation 

Presented  to  the  Faculty  of  Bryn  Ma^r  College  in  Partial 

Fulfilment  of  the  Requirements  for  the 

Degree  of 

Doctor  of  Philosophy 


By  MARY  ALICE  HANNA 


REPRINTED   FROM 

THE  SMITH   COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

1917 


Q 


ijecH 


CONTENTS 


PACK 

Preface    239 

CHAPTER  I 

Economic  Conditions  in  the  Dei^aware  District  Before  1763 

1.  Trade  Boundaries  242 

2.  Products  and  Industries    248 

3.  Trade  Routes    260 

4.  Illicit  Trade  Before  1763 267 

CHAPTER  II 
British  Legislation,  1763-1773 

1.  New  Trade  Regulations    275 

2.  New  Revenue  Measures   293 

CHAPTER  III 

The  Effect  of  the  British  Legislation 

1 .  Manufactures    307 

2.  Trade  Statistics  310 

3.  Illicit  Trade  After  1763 320 

Conclusion    333 

Bibliography    334 

Appendices    •  • 339 


3GC5I3 


PREFACE 


During  the  past  decade  there  have  appeared  several  books, 
monographs,  and  articles  which  treat  colonial  history  from  the  im- 
perial and  economic  points  of  view.^  In  the  light  of  these  studies, 
there  has  developed  a  new  conception  of  the  British  empire  in 
the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries,  in  which  the  colonies 
have  come  to  be  considered  primarily  as  parts  of  the  empire 
rather  than  as  the  beginnings  of  the  United  States.  The  theory 
of  the  continuity  of  colonial  policy  has  been  placed  beyond  dis- 
pute. The  acts  of  trade  and  navigation  have  been  traced  to  their 
sources  and  have  been  given  a  new  meaning  and  a  new  import- 
ance. Many  of  the  acts  were  passed  to  prevent  imperial  disinte- 
gration and  did  not  at  the  time  impose  any  hardship  upon  the 
colonies,  for  instance,  the  wool  act  of  1699  and  the  iron  act  of 
1750.  Even  the  measures  which  seemed  to  be  most  prejudicial  to 
colonial  interests  were  often  the  product  of  imperial  necessity. 
The  molasses  act,  for  example,  was  intended  primarily  as  a  blow 
at  France,  and  in  the  controversy  over  tea  the  increasing  power 
of  the  East  India  Company  was  a  more  significant  factor  than 
the  question  of  colonial  taxation. 

An  analysis  of  legislation  from  the  economic  and  imperial 
points  of  view  and  its  eflfect  upon  the  trade  of  the  empire  sug- 
gests an  interesting  field  for  investigation.  Especially  is  this 
true  of  the  period  immediately  preceding  the  American  War  of 

'Beer,  G.  L.,  The  origins  of  the  British  Colonial  System,  1578-1660 
(1908). 

,  The  Old  Colonial  System,  Part  I,  Vols.  I  and  II.     1912. 

,  British  Colonial  Policy,  1754-1765.     (1907). 

Root,  W.  T.,  The  Relations  of  Pennsylvania  with  the  British  Govern- 
ment, 1696-1765.     (1912). 

Giesecke,  A.  A.,  American  Commercial  Legislation  before  1789.    (1910). 

Andrews,  C.  M.,  Colonial  Commerce — The  American  Historical  Re- 
view, October,  1914. 

Morriss,  M.  S.,  Maryland  Trade,  1689-1715.     (1914). 

Lord,  E.  L.,  Industrial  Experiments  in  the  British  Colonies  of  North 
America.     (1896). 


240  Smith  Coli^ege  Studies  in  History 

Independence.  At  that  time  England,  after  a  long  struggle  with 
France  for  dominion  in  America,  began  to  take  an  inventory  of 
her  colonial  possessions  and  to  reorganize  the  empire.  The  trade 
and  navigation  acts,  which  were  originally  directed  against  the 
Dutch,  were  revised  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  time.  In  addition, 
other  acts  were  passed  in  order  to  put  the  empire  on  a  more  self- 
sufficing  basis.  The  effect  which  this  reorganization  produced 
is  best  seen  by  investigating  the  economic  conditions  and  the  trade 
of  a  part  of  the  empire,  and,  as  the  American  colonies  presented 
the  most  formidable  objections,  a  study  of  their  trade  ought  to 
indicate  to  what  extent  the  legislation  of  the  period  served  its 
purpose.  It  is  with  the  hope  that  some  light  may  be  thrown 
upon  a  few  of  the  commercial  and  economic  problems  of  the 
period  that  the  writer  ventures  to  present  the  results  of  her  in- 
vestigation of  the  British  trade  legislation  from  1763,  the  close 
of  the  Seven  Years'  War,  to  1773,  when  the  controversy  between 
Great  Britain  and  the  American  colonies  lost  its  economic  aspect 
and  became  more  exclusively  political  in  character. 

This  study  was  undertaken  at  the  suggestion  of  Dr.  William 
Roy  Smith,  of  Bryn  Mawr  College,  and  to  him  the  writer  is 
deeply  indebted  for  assistance  at  every  stage  of  her  progress.  It 
is  a  pleasure  to  mention  others  who  have  made  valuable  sug- 
gestions and  criticisms,  among  whom  are  Dr.  Charles  Hull,  of 
Cornell  University;  Dr.  Frances  Davenport,  of  the  Department 
of  Historical  Research  of  the  Carnegie  Institute;  Mr.  Hubert 
Hall  and  Dr.  Lilian  Knowles,  of  the  London  School  of  Eco- 
nomics; Dr.  A.  F.  Pollard,  of  University  College,  London,  and 
especially  Mr.  George  Louis  Beer,  who  permitted  the  use  of  some 
of  his  extracts  from  the  Colonial  Papers.  Thanks  are  due  also  to 
the  officials  of  the  Public  Record  Office,  of  the  British  Museum, 
of  the  House  of  Lords,  of  Devonshire  House,  of  the  Bodleian 
Library,  of  the  Library  of  All  Soul's  College,  Oxford,  and  of  the 
Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania,  who  were  unfailing  in  their 
courtesy  and  attention. 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  Before  the 

Revolution 


CHAPTER  I 
Economic  Conditions  in  the;  Delaware;  District  Before  1763 

In  treating  the  problems  of  the  continental  colonies  it  has  been 
the  custom,  for  the  most  part,  to  consider  them  as  a  whole,  or  to 
place  special  emphasis  upon  individual  colonies.  While  this 
method  may  be  used  in  political,  social,  or  constitutional  investi- 
gations, it  is  most  inadequate  when  the  subject  of  trade  is  under 
consideration.  The  thirteen  colonies  did  not  constitute  an  eco- 
nomic unit,  and  it  is  frequently  difficult  to  consider  any  one  colony 
by  itself,  because  the  area  of  trade  and  the  political  area  did  not 
always  coincide.  The  export  and  import  district  of  any  given 
port  depended  largely  upon  the  means  of  transportation,  which, 
in  the  eighteenth  century,  usually  meant  river  transportation. 
There  were  only  a  few  roads  stretching  out  from  the  main  centers 
of  population,  and  these  were  not  capable  of  being  used  for  heavy 
traffic.  It  was  observed  by  an  anonymous  English  writer  that 
"North  American  productions  are  weighty  and  of  great  bulk, 
water  carriage  is  extremely  necessary  to  convey  them  to  the  sea- 
side for  exportation  and  reconvey  to  the  inland  country  the  man- 
ufactures of  Great  Britain — a  convenience  without  which  such 
settlement  can  have  little  or  no  communication  with  the  mother 
country,  or  be  of  much  utility  to  it."^  Thus,  by  using  the  means 
of  transportation  as  a  basis,  the  British-American  mainland  dur- 
ing the  eighteenth  century  can  be  divided  into  trading  districts. 
An  economic  study  should  concern  itself  with  these  districts 
rather  than  with  individual  colonies. 


^  Chatham  Papers,  Bun.  97,  May,  1766. 
Friends'  Collection  of  Mss.  IV. 

Letters  written  from  Philadelphia  by  Friends  traveling  in  America  in 
1757  describe  the  difificulties  of  travel  over  the  few  poor  roads. 


242  Smith  CoivLSge;  Studies  in  History 

(1)  Trade  Boundaries 

The  trade  area  of  Philadelphia,  one  of  the  most  flourishing 
ports  on  the  American  continent,  included  part  of  Pennsylvania, 
the  three  lower  counties  on  the  Delaware,  and  a  large  section  of 
West  Jersey.  These  formed,  what,  for  convenience,  might  be 
called  the  Delaware  district.  In  order  to  give  the  exact  bound- 
aries of  this  district  it  would  be  necessary  to  ascertain  to  what 
market  each  farmer  sent  his  produce  and  where  he  bought  his 
supplies.  The  lack  of  material  at  present  makes  this  impossible. 
Approximate  boundaries  only  can  be  defined.  Within  the  pro- 
vince of  Pennsylvania  the  trade  was  usually  confined  to  the 
counties  of  Philadelphia,  Bucks,  Berks,  and  Northampton,  and 
the  eastern  and  northern  parts  of  Chester  and  Lancaster.  This 
area  was  continually  being  extended  by  the  opening  of  new  roads, 
but  serviceable  roads  were  not  numerous  during  the  colonial  per- 
iod. For  example,  the  principal  roads  in  1776  connecting  the 
upper  Schuylkill  and  the  Susquehannah  were  a  road  from 
Hughes'  Saw-Mill,  about  thirty  miles  above  Reading,  to  Fort  Au- 
gusta, and  the  road  running  from  Reading  to  a  point  just  south  of 
Fort  Augusta.  In  the  lower  Susquehannah  valley  there  were  many 
more.  The  Paxton  road  began  near  the  house  of  John  Harris, 
Paxton  Township,  Lancaster  County,  and  ran  into  the  Highroad 
Kennison  in  Whiteland,  Chester  County.^  The  King's  High- 
way and  the  New  Castle  and  Conestoga  Whiskey  roads  crossed 
the  Nottingham  and  New  Garden  road  near  Elk  Creek  and 
reached  Philadelphia  by  way  of  Kennett  Square  and  Chester. 
There  was  also  one  from  Harris  Ferry  (Harrisburg)  to  Lan- 
caster and  another  to  Reading.^     By  means  of  these  highways, 


*  Smith,  William  Roy,  Sectionalism  in  Pennsylvania  during  the  Revolu- 
tion [in  The  Political  Science  Quarterly,  Vol.  XXIV,  No.  2;  p.  219.] 
Statutes  at  Large  of  Pennsylvania,  Vol.  VIII,  pp.  56-58.  Pennsylvania 
Archives,  1st  Series,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  362-363.  Colonial  Records,  Vol.  IX, 
pp.  651,  182-185. 

'Colonial  Records,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  419-420.  Map  of  Nicholas  Scull, 
(1759),  and  William  Scull,  (1770).  [Pennsylvania  Archives,  3rd  Series, 
App.  I-IX.]  H.  Frank  Eshleman's  Map  of  the  Earliest  Highways  leading 
from  the  Deleware  and  Schuylkill  Rivers  to  the  Susquehannah  River 
and  its  Branches. 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  243 

traders,  who  had  taken  agricultural  products  to  Philadelphia,  or 
to  Baltimore  by  boat  or  raft,  could  bring  back  manufactured  ar- 
ticles from  Philadelphia. 

It  is  very  improbable  that  the  product  of  the  land  west  of  the 
Susquehannah,  or  within  a  radius  of  a  few  miles  east  of  the  lower 
part  of  it,  ever  reached  the  eastern  part  of  Pennsylvania.  It  was 
easier  to  take  the  produce  of  this  section,  put  it  on  rafts  and 
send  it  to  Baltimore  or  Annapolis.  There  were  three  main  rea- 
sons why  the  trade  of  Pennsylvania  west  of  the  district  defined  in 
the  previous  paragraph  went  to  Baltimore.  The  first  was  lack  of 
roads.  Baltimore  had  grown  up  simultaneously  with  the  rapid  in- 
crease of  the  Scotch-Irish  population  in  the  western  part  of  Penn- 
sylvania. It  was  a  great  surprise  to  the  eastern  merchants,  who 
were  accustomed  to  an  undisputed  monopoly  of  the  commerce  of 
Pennsylvania  and  surrounding  colonies,  when  they  first  realized 
that  this  very  lucrative  western  trade  was  going  to  a  new  port 
outside  the  province.  All  efforts  made  before  the  War  of  Inde- 
pendence to  counteract  this  tendency  were  unsuccessful. **  Mer- 
chants felt  the  loss  of  business  keenly,  but  it  was  difficult  to  per- 
suade the  assembly  to  appropriate  the  funds  for  building  the 
necessary  roads. ^  The  second  reason  why  the  trade  went  to  Mary- 
land may  be  found  in  the  habits  and  occupations  of  the  people, 
which  made  the  Susquehannah  the  only  necessary  route.  The  set- 
tlers in  that  part  of  the  province  were  agricultural.  They  pro- 
duced in  the  field  or  the  house  all  the  necessities  of  life.  They 
had  little  need  for  the  manufactured  articles  which  were  im- 
ported into  the  eastern  part  of  the  colony.  In  the  third  place,  po- 
litical disaffection  made  them  prefer  to  trade  with  Maryland. 
They  took  great  delight  in  thwarting  all  the  plans  of  the  Quaker 
assembly  to  bring  the  western  trade  to  Philadelphia. 

It  is  more  difficult  to  draw  the  line  in  New  Jersey  beyond 
which  the  inhabitants  ceased  to  trade  with  Philadelphia.     There 


*  Pennsylvania  Archives,  Vol.  IV,  p.  362;  IX,  pp.  65,  657,  666,  703,  731. 
Lincoln,  C.  H.,  The  Revolutionary  Alovement  in  Pennsylvania,  1760- 
1776.     Chap.  IV,  passim. 

"  Ibid.,  p.  64. 


244  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

was  no  port  in  that  province  which  had  a  very  extensive  trade.^ 
Consequently,  New  Jersey  depended  upon  the  ports  of  New  York 
and  Philadelphia.  The  trade  of  East  Jersey  went  to  New  York, 
but  it  was  more  convenient  to  send  the  products  of  West  Jersey 
to  Philadelphia  by  the  Delaware  river  and  its  tributaries,  or  by 
road. 

The  assumption  that  Philadelphia  had  a  trade  area  which  in- 
cluded West  Jersey  and  the  lower  counties  is  further  upheld  by 
the  divisions  made  for  the  vice-admiralty  courts  in  America."  The 
staff  of  officers  stationed  in  Philadelphia  had  supervision  over 
the  ports  of  Pennsylvania,  the  lower  counties,  and  West  Jersey. 
Furthermore,  the  local  commercial  legislation  proves  conclusively 
that  there  existed  a  trade  unity  among  all  of  the  ports  on  the 
Delaware.^ 

Philadelphia  was  the  only  port  within  this  district  whose  har- 
bors were  of  sufficient  size  to  allow  ships  of  more  than  eighty 
or  ninety  tons  to  enter. ^  A  very  good  description  was  given  of  it 
in  a  report  resulting  from  an  investigation  of  the  ports,  districts 
and  towns  of  America  in  1770.  "It  has  been  taken  for  granted 
that  the  limits  of  this  port  begin  where  a  line  divides  Pennsylvania 
from  New  Castle  County  and  extends  along  the  river  Delaware 
on  the  Pennsylvania  side  as  far  as  the  river  is  navigable  above 
Philadelphia — makes  about  twenty-five  miles  below  and  thirty 
miles  above  that  city.  Within  this  district  are  several  creeks,  but 
only  navigable  for  small  vessels,  the  principal  are  Chester,  Darby 
and  Sahykill"  [Schuylkill ?]io 


*  Giesecke,  American  Commercial  Legislation  before  1789,  pp.  103-104.  ' 
New  York  had  objected  to  Perth  Amboy  being  made  an  important  port. 
Osgood,  H.  L.,  The  American  Colonies  in  the  Seventeenth  Century,  Vol. 
II,  pp.  187-190.    A  discussion  of  Elizabethtown  as  a  probable  port  may  be 
found  here. 

'Admiralty  Secretary  Out  Letters,  2:1058.  Colonial  Office,  391:10. 
W.  T.  Root,  The  Relations  of  Pennsylvania  with  Great  Britain,  p.  94. 

'Pennsylvania  Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  II,  105,  384;  III,  112,  151,  268, 
416.  Acts  regarding  Tonnage  Duties  and  Export  and  Import  duties 
exempt  Delaware  and  West  Jersey.  Giesecke,  American  Commercial 
Legislation  Before  1789,  p.  86. 

'  Pennsylvania  Historical  Society  Memoirs,  Vol.  II,  p.  216.  Penn 
gave  careful  instructions  concerning  the  location  of  the  chief  port  in  his 
commonwealth  in  view  of  future  trade  development. 

"  Additional  Manuscripts,  15484,  taken  from  Chalmers'  Library.  Ports, 
districts,  and  towns  of  America. 


Trade  of  the  Dei^aware  District  245 

The  other  ports  of  the  district — Lewes,  New  Castle,  Wihiiing- 
ton  and  BurHngton — played  little  part  in  any  but  the  coastwise 
and  contraband  trade.  Lewes  extended  thirty  miles  and  included 
many  small  creeks.^ ^  Although  admirably  situated  to  serve  as  a 
base  of  operation  for  the  prevention  of  illicit  trade,  it  was  really 
used  as  a  convenient  place  to  lie  in  wait  for  vessels,  in  order  to 
smuggle  cargoes  into  Philadelphia  by  taking  them  to  Reedy  Is- 
land, or  some  other  place  and  unloading  them.  Conditions  were 
much  the  same  in  the  ports  of  Burlington,  New  Castle  and  Wil- 
mington as  at  Lewes.  There  was  only  one  officer  at  Burlington, 
and  it  would  have  been  impossible  for  him  to  supervise  the  num- 
erous creeks  and  river  entries  in  that  vicinity.^- 

It  would  be  difficult  to  outline  the  local  trade  policy  of  this 
district  with  any  degree  of  accuracy.  There  was  such  a  small 
part  of  the  trade  which  was  not  in  some  way  influenced  by  the 
British  laws,  that  the  tendencies  towards  a  definite  provincial 
policy  can  only  be  estimated  roughly.  It  is  fairly  clear,  however, 
that  free  trade  had  gained  as  little  headway  here  as  in  England. 
When  the  exemptions  made  in  favour  of  West  Jersey  and  Del- 
aware are  eliminated,  and  the  district  is  considered  as  a  whole, 
there  is  very  little  which  points  to  a  free  trade  policy  in  the 
present  use  of  the  word.^-''  Petitions  of  merchants  against  taxing 
trade,  discussions  in  Council,  and  pamphlets  written  on  the  sub- 
ject, are  the  only  indication  of  such  a  tendency.^-* 

The  primary  reason  for  taxing  trade  was  to  secure  revenue. 
The  annual  charge  of  maintaining  and  supporting  the  establish- 
ment of  the  province  of  Pennsylvania  was  estimated  in  1767 
at  il3,400.i^    This  expense  was  met  by  various  means.     The  as- 


"  Additional  Manuscripts,  15484,  taken  from  Chalmers'  Library.  Ports, 
districts,  and  towns  of  America. 

"  Ibid. 

"  See  Giesecke,  American  Commercial  Legislation  before  1789,  passim. 
Pennsylvania  Statutes,  Vol.  II,  pp.  105;  III,  151,  263,  363,  465.  Pennsyl- 
vania Archives,  4th  Series,  Vol.  II,  p.  961. 

"Colonial  Records,  Vol.  VIII,  PP-  30,  31.  Pennsylvania  Archives,  4th 
Series,  Vol.  II,  p.  903. 

'•*  Pennsylvania  Archives,  4th  Series,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  341,  Papers  of  John 
Penn. 


246  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

sembly  annually  voted  £1,200.^'^  Fees  such  as  licenses  for  public 
houses,  marriages,  pedlars  and  ships,  and  fines  for  ofifences  of 
persons  convicted  were  of  uncertain  but  considerable  value. ^^  The 
sale  of  new  lands  brought  in  an  increasing  sum  as  the  population 
grew.^^  A  small  amount  was  received  from  quit  rents,  but  they 
were  always  in  arrears,  and  so  little  care  was  taken  in  collecting 
them  that  not  much  was  realized  from  this  source.^^  In  addition 
to  the  sum  raised  by  these  methods,  it  was  thought  necessary  to 
tax  exports  and  imports  which  were  not  subject  to  English  trade 
laws. 

The  first  duties  exacted  were  ad  valorem?^  This  duty  was 
usually  5%.  It  was  soon  supplanted  by  specific  duties  on  certain 
articles,  such  as  tobacco,  sugar,  cocoa,  molasses,  dye  woods  and 
tea;  other  goods,  except  salt,  iron  and  munitions  of  war  retained 
the  ad  valorem  duty  of  5%. 

The  early  tariff  legislation  levying  specific  import  duties  on 
sugar,  spirits,  and  wine,  gave  encouragement  to  direct  trade  from 
place  of  growth,  to  home  shipping  and  to  provincial  production  of 
spirits. 2^  These  bills,  as  well  as  those  regarding  tonnage  during 
the  first  three  decades,  show  clearly  that  the  element  of  protec- 
tion was  very  strong.--  In  fact  the  eagerness  to  protect  home 
shipping  and  industries  was  so  great  that  the  provincial  tariff 
legislation  interfered  at  times  with  the  British. -^  Further  indi- 
cations of  a  protective  policy  may  be  found  in  bounties  offered 
for  home  production  of  certain  products,  and  in  the  system  of 
drawbacks  on  re-exportation. ^'i 


"Colonial  Office,  5:112. 

"  Ibid. 

"  Pennsylvania  Archives.    4th  Series,  Vol.  Ill,  341-2. 

"C.  O.,  5:1233. 

"*  Pennsylvania  Archives.  2nd  Series,  Vol.  V,  603.  Colonial  Records, 
Vol.  Ill,  p.  63. 

-'Pennsylvania  Statutes,  Vol.  II,  105;  III,  112,  151,  268,  416.  James 
Madison,  Letters  and  other  writings  (New  York,  1899),  Vol.  I,  226. 

""  Pennsylvania  Statutes,  Vol.  II,  385,  543;  III,  166,  238. 

**  Giesecke,  p.  30. 

^Pennsylvania  Statutes,  Vol.  Ill,  115,  154.  Votes  and  Proceedings  of 
the  House  of  Representatives,  Vol.  Ill,  6,  7,  128,  129,  314,  324.  Pennsyl- 
vania Archives,  4th  Series,  Vol.  I,  674,  Papers  of  George  Thomas. 


Trade:  of  the  De;laware  District  247 

In  two  ways  this  district  was  more  or  less  isolated  from  the 
mother  country.  It  was  principally  controlled  by  the  govern- 
ment of  Pennsylvania.  Since  this  government  was  proprietary 
in  form,  the  deputy  governor  was  appointed  by  the  proprietor  and 
was  directly  responsible  to  him.  According  to  a  statute  of  1696, 
the  appointment  had  to  be  approved  by  the  crown  and  the 
deputy  governor  had  to  take  an  oath  that  he  would  perform  his 
duties  in  regard  to  the  trade  laws.  If  the  laws  were  not  obeyed 
he  was  liable  to  a  fine  of  £1,000,  or  removal  from  office.-^  Robert 
Quary,  the  first  judge  of  the  vice-admiralty  in  Philadelphia,  made 
complaint  against  Deputy  Governor  Markham,  who  had  not  been 
approved,  and  finally  forced  William  Penn  in  1699  to  remove 
him.-^  But  that  was  about  as  far  as  any  supervision  of  the  deputy 
governors  extended.  Almost  all  the  other  colonial  governors 
were  required  to  send  in  detailed  reports  of  the  state  of  manu- 
factures and  trade  in  their  respective  provinces.  These  were  in 
answer  to  circular  letters  sent  out  by  the  board  of  trade.  By 
mistake,  one  was  sent  to  John  Penn  when  he  was  deputy  gov- 
ernor, and  the  correspondence  which  followed  between  Secretary 
Shelburne,  Thomas  Penn  and  John  Penn  shows  clearly  that  the 
Penns  considered  their  province  as  private  property.  Thus  non- 
interference had  allowed  them  to  develop  along  independent 
lines. 2^ 

A  second  cause  for  isolation  may  be  found  in  the  undesirable 
economic  character  of  the  district  considered  from  the  mercantil- 
ist point  of  view.  In  the  eighteenth  century  the  ideal  colony  was 
one  which  produced  raw  material  to  be  manufactured  in  the 
mother  country,  supplied  food-stuffs  which  were  not  grown  at 
home,  or  brought  in  bullion.  In  no  way  was  this  standard  at- 
tained in  the  Delaware  district.  The  products  were  virtually  the 
same  as  those  of  England,  so  that  instead  of  having  an  exchange- 
able commodity  for  British  manufactures,  the  district  was  really 


^  Root,  The  Relations  of  Pennsylvania  with  the  British  Government, 
1696-1765.  p.  49. 

'"C.  O.,  5:1288.  pp.  98  et  seq. 

"  Penn  Letter  Book,  Vol.  IX,  pp.  109,  241.  Penn  Manuscript,  Vol.  X, 
p.  192.     C.  O.,  5:112,  Letter  from  John  Penn  to  Thomas  Penn. 


248  Smith  Colle;ge;  Studies  in  History 

a  competitor  of  Great  Britain.  This  state  of  affairs  hindered  con- 
siderably any  direct  trade,  such  as  existed  between  England  and 
the  southern  colonies,  or  between  England  and  the  West  Indies. 

(2)  Products  and  Industries 

The  Delaware  district  was  primarily  agricultural.  The  chief 
exports  were  provisions  of  various  kinds  and  lumber.  Of  the 
provisions,  the  most  important  were  wheat,  flour  and  bread. ^s 
From  the  time  of  the  earliest  settlements  it  was  realized  that 
wheat  could  be  produced  more  easily  than  any  other  product,  and 
flour  milling  and  bread  baking  became  thriving  industries.  But 
the  desire  to  produce  something  which  could  be  exchanged  di- 
rectly with  the  mother-country  led  to  experiments  with  other 
products,  particularly  tobacco,  which  yielded  a  large  revenue  to 
the  government,  and  did  not  compete  with  the  agricultural  in- 
dustries of  England.  For  these  reasons  the  tobacco  colonies  held 
a  favoured  position  in  the  English  colonial  system.^^  In  1701, 
William  Penn,  who  was  anxious  to  encourage  tobacco  and  rice 
as  staples  and  to  promote  the  cod  fisheries  and  fur  trade,  wrote  to 
the  board  of  trade  that,  if  such  industries  were  not  developed,  his 
colonies  would  not  be  at  all  useful  to  the  mother  country.^*^ 

For  a  time  it  seemed  that  tobacco  would  become  the  staple. 
The  quality  was  very  inferior  to  that  produced  in  Virginia  and 
Maryland,  but  it  sold  for  a  higher  price,  because  there  existed 
before  the  Act  of  Union  a  flourishing  illegal  trade  between  traders 
of  this  district  and  merchants  in  England  who  smuggled  tobacco 
into  Scotland. 2^  "The  great  price  which  tobacco  yields  here," 
wrote  Quary  to  the  board  of  trade  in  1700,  "encourages  the 
country  to  plant  more  than  ever ;  it  hath  been  sold  here  this  year 


"'C.  O.,  5:1280,  Aug.  10,  1765.  Letter  from  H.  S.  Conway  to  Governor 
Penn,  in  which  he  explains  the  competition  between  England  and  the 
Delaware  district. 

^'C.  O.,  5:1289,  pp.  2034.  Little  attention  was  paid  to  the  fact  that  a 
great  deal  of  the  tobacco  was  re-exported  to  foreign  countries,  and  that 
upon  re-exportation  all  of  the  duties  were  drawn  back.  The  main  idea 
was  to  get  the  revenue  regardless  of  subsequent  drawbacks. 

="C.  O.,  5:1288,  pp.  227-234.    C.  O.,  5:1289,  pp.  17-31. 

^'  Beer,  G.  L.,  Mss.  notes  based  on  Colonial  Papers. 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  249 

for  above  thirty  shillings  per  hogshead,  which  is  more  than  the 
best  Virginia  and  Maryland  hath  yielded,  though  the  tobacco  of 
this  country  is  not  half  so  good ;  the  reason  is  from  the  advantage 
of  illegal  trade  here."^^     » 

In  the  same  letter  Quary  said  that  Pennsylvania  had  determ- 
ined to  plant  tobacco  in  the  three  upper  as  well  as  in  the  three 
lower  counties. •'^•■^  Before  1700,  the  amount  produced  was  never 
more  than  300  or  400  hogsheads,  but  in  1700  and  1701,  it  had  in- 
creased to  3000  or  4000  hogsheads^^  and  the  production  probably 
reached  its  height  in  1705-1706,  when  John  Evans,  the  deputy- 
governor,  wrote  that  tobacco  was  of  great  importance  to  the  peo- 
ple in  general  but  especially  to  those  of  the  lower  counties.  From 
this  time  there  was  a  decrease  in  the  production  as  is  indicated 
by  the  custom  house  papers  of  Philadelphia,  1704-1713,  which 
registered  the  amount  of  the  penny  a  pound  duty  on  exportation  of 
tobacco  from  one  colony  to  another.^^  The  trade  in  tobacco  was 
gradually  superseded  by  trade  in  wheat,  which  was  the  more  nat- 
ural product  of  the  province.  Sir  William  Keith  wrote,  in  1722, 
that  it  was  more  profitable  to  grow  wheat  than  tobacco,  owing  to 
the  trade  which  had  grown  up  with  the  other  ports  on  the  Ameri- 
can continent,  the  West  Indies  and  the  southern  ports  of  Europe.^^ 

As  early  as  1700,  Robert  Quary  said  that  the  people  by  their 


'=C.  O.,  5:1288,  pp.  18-19. 
''C.  O.,  5:1288,  pp.  227-234. 
"  C.  O.,  5  :1288,  pp.  26,  471. 
'=C.  O.,  5:1265,  p.  114. 

C.  O.,  5  :390,  June  1,  1724,  Custom  House,  London.  In  1722,  there  were 
137,721  pounds  of  tobacco  exported  from  Pennsylvania  to  England.  The 
amount  was  small  compared  with  that  sent  from  Virginia — 28,313,336 
pounds — and  compared  with  the  other  exports  from  Pennsylvania. 

The  Custom  House  Papers  of  Philadelphia  1704-1713.  Duty  of  penny 
a  pound  on  exportation  of  tobacco  from  Philadelphia.  [This  duty  was 
1704-5  i825  18s.  Id.  levied  on  tobacco  exported  from  colony  to 
1705-6        973     13       10  colony    by   parliament    in    the    act   25    Chas. 

II  C  7  to  "prevent  exportation  of  goods 
from  colony  to  colony  and  so  to  foreign 
countries  in  Europe  evading  the  English 
Customs."  See  Morriss — Colonial  Trade 
of  Maryland  1689-1715,  p.  50  Col.  S.  P.  A. 
W.  I.  2306.] 
C.  O.,  5:1273,  R  42.    C.  O.,  5:1277,  pp.  227-234. 


1706-7 

398 

11 

6 

1707-8 

615 

0 

0 

1708-9 

118 

14 

4 

1709-10 

214 

6 

2 

1710-11 

95 

11 

4 

1711-12 

209 

4 

4 

250  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

industry  had  greatly  improved  agriculture  and  had  made  bread 
and  flour  a  drug  on  the  market  in  the  West  Indies.^'''  Colonel 
Thomas,  in  1740,  pointed  out  that  the  production  of  wheat  was  of 
great  importance  in  that  the  proceeds  of  the  large  quantities  which 
were  exported  from  Philadelphia  centered  in  Great  Britain. ^^  It 
was  in  time  discovered,  however,  that  the  exportation  of  flour 
and  bread  was  more  profitable  than  that  of  wheat.  In  the  latter 
part  of  the  colonial  period  the  trade  statistics  show  that  consider- 
able quantities  of  wheat  were  imported  into  Philadelphia  from 
the  other  colonies,  although  very  little  was  exported.  At  the  same 
time  there  was  a  large  exportation  of  bread  and  flour.^^ 

Grist  mills  had  existed  in  the  district  even  before  William 
Penn  came  to  America.  According  to  Bishop  the  first  one  was 
built  on  the  Darby  road,  in  1643,  by  Colonel  John  Printz,  the 
governor  of  New  Sweden ;  one  was  built  in  New  Castle  in  1658, 
and  another  at  Trenton  in  1680.  Germantown  possessed  the  first 
mill  in  Philadelphia  County,  but  soon  after  the  founding  of 
Pennsylvania  many  mills  were  in  operation  throughout  the  dis- 
trict. The  places  where  they  were  situated  became  markets  for 
the  grain  of  the  surrounding  country,  and  after  the  local  demand 
was  supplied  the  surplus  was  sent  to  Philadelphia  for  exporta- 
tion. The  flour  and  bread  industry  gradually  developed  until  in 
time  it  exceeded  all  others.  The  following  table  will  give  some 
idea  of  its  increasing  importance  r^*^ 


Year 

Wheat  (Bu.) 

Flour  (Bbls.) 

Bread  (Casks) 

1729 

74,809 

35,438 

9,730 

1730 

38,643 

38,570 

9,622 

1731 

53,320 

56,639 

12,436 

1752 

125,960 

1765 

365,522 

148,887 

34,736 

1772 

51,699 

252,744 

38,320 

1773 

92,012 

284,872 

50,504 

1774 

182,391 

265,967 

48,183 

The  years  1731-1738  mark  the  period  when  the  trade  in  flour 


''C.  O.,  5:1233. 

''  Ibid. 

'"Colonial  Customs    (Record  Office)    16:1. 

*"  Bishop,  J.  L.,  American  Manufactures,  139-144. 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  251 

and  bread  became  noticeably  more  important.  They  were  years 
of  unusual  harvests  both  in  Europe  and  America.  This  worked 
a  great  hardship  upon  the  wheat  exporting  provinces.  It  brought 
about  a  stagnation  of  currency  in  Pennsylvania,  and  threatened 
her  prosperity.  Governor  Gordon,  in  his  address  to  the  assem- 
bly in  1731,  pointed  out  that  "all  possible  measures  should  be 
taken  to  recommend  them  to  a  greater  degree  abroad  that  they  may 
find  a  readier  sale."'*^  He  remarked  further,  "I  have  understood 
that,  when  this  colony  was  young  and  had  but  little  experience,  it 
exceeded  all  its  neighbors  in  the  fineness  of  its  flour  and  bread 
and  goodness  of  its  beer,  which  are  the  only  produce  of  our  grain ; 
the  first  two  have  greatly  contributed  to  their  improvement  as 
well  as  the  reputation  of  the  province.  And  it  will  still  become 
the  legislature  to  continue  their  care  and  concern  in  a  point  of 
such  consequence  to  the  whole."^^ 

As  the  above  indicates  care  was  taken  that  the  flour  and 
bread  which  was  exported  should  attain  a  high  standard.  It  was 
enacted  in  1700,  "that  all  biscuits  and  flour  made  for  transporta- 
tion shall  be  well  made  and  honestly  and  truly  packed  for  the 
encouragement  of  our  trade  and  credit:  that  those  who  purchase 
the  same  may  not  be  cheated  or  defrauded.  And  all  such  persons 
that  make  flour  or  biscuits  for  transportation  shall  set  their  sev- 
eral brand  marks  on  each  cask  before  shipped,  on  the  penalty  of 
five  shillings  for  every  cask  by  them  sold  and  unmarked  as  afore- 
said. And  if  any  bread  or  flour  shall  pass  out  of  this  province 
or  territories  falsely  packed  and  the  same  happen  to  be  returned, 
in  all  such  cases  the  persons  offending  shall  pay  to  the  party 
wronged  double  damages  for  the  same."^^ 

From  time  to  time  this  act  was  renewed  and  additions  were 
made  to  it.  Each  addition  was  more  stringent,  and  was  usually 
passed  on  the  advice  of  the  governor  when  he  noticed  a  tendency 


"  Pennsylvania  Archives,  4th  Series,  Vol.  I,  474. 

*"  Ibid. 

*^  Pennsylvania  Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  II,  96. 


252  Smith  ColIvEgk  Studies  in  History 

for  the  quality  to  deteriorate.^^  For  example,  Governor  Gordon 
in  addressing  the  assembly,  on  November  2,  1738,  said:  "The 
better  your  commodities  exported  from  hence  are,  the  better  price 
they  will  fetch  at  markets  abroad.  Care  too  ought  to  be  taken 
that  the  exporter  is  not  deceived.  .  .  .  This  consideration  ap- 
plied to  your  flour  trade  will  induce  you  to  take  some  further 
care  of  it;  for  though  the  laws  you  already  have  will  be  of  great 
service  if  well  executed,  some  further  regulations  seem  necessary, 
particularly  to  prevent  the  mixture  of  different  sorts  of  grain, 
which  every  man  sees  are  now  reaped  in  every  field. "•*-'^ 

Similar  care  was  taken  in  the  preparation  of  other  provisions 
which  were  exported  from  Philadelphia.^^  There  was  a  flourish- 
ing export  trade  in  cattle,  and  the  packing  of  beef  and  pork  to  be 
used  in  the  West  Indies  was  very  important.  Hence  we  find  num- 
erous laws  passed,  demanding  that  these  provisions  be  made  mer- 
chantable and  inflicting  severe  penalties  on  those  who  evaded 
them.  Laws  of  this  nature  were  very  easily  evaded,  and  were 
probably  less  effective  than  the  force  of  competition. 

Not  a  little  profit  was  realized  in  the  fur  trade.  The  beaver 
trade  was  important  in  the  Schuylkill  valley  before  William  Penn 
came,  and  skins  of  all  kinds  in  fairly  large  quantities  were  ex- 
ported from  Philadelphia  during  the  entire  colonial  period.  In 
the  opening  years  of  the  eighteenth  century  they  formed  with  to- 
bacco the  chief  articles  of  export.  From  Christmas,  1699, to  Christ- 
mas 1700  the  following  were  sent:  516  pounds  of  buck  in  hair, 
326  pounds  of  cat,  1222  pounds  of  fox,  121  beaver  skins,  4921 
pounds  of  raccoon,  together  with  some  elk,  bear  and  mink.'*'^  The 
table  of  exports  from  Philadelphia  show  that  there  were : 


"  These  renewals  and  additions  were  made  on :  May  22,  1722.  Penn- 
sylvania  Statutes  at   Large,   Vol.   Ill,   321;   August   18,    1727,   Ibid.,   Vol. 

IV,  73;  January  19,  1733,  Ibid.,  Vol.  IV,  248;  March  9,  1745,  Ibid.,  Vol. 

V,  38;  April  21,  1759,  Ibid.,  Vol.  V,  400;  April  22,  1761,  Ibid.,  Vol.  VI, 
112;  February  21,  1767,  Ibid.,  Vol.  VII,  57. 

^  Votes  and  Proceedings  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, Vol.  Ill,  324. 

''Pennsylvania  Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  II,  96;  III,  22,  275;  IV,  75; 
V,  97,  400. 

"  Bean,  T.  W.,  History  of  Montgomery  County,  p.  120.  C.  O.,  5  :1291, 
pp.  226-227. 


Trads  of  the;  Delaware  District  253 

49  chests  of  skins  in  1759 

140  chests  of  skins  in  1760 

256  chests  of  skins  in  1761 

228J/2  chests  of  skins  in  1762 

132  chests  of  skins  in  1763'' 

Before  1759,  the  Indian  trade  in  Pennsylvania,  where  the 
traders  were  very  numerous  and  enterprising,^^  was  practically 
unrestricted.  Any  one  could  engage  in  it  upon  obtaining  a  li- 
cense from  the  governor.^^  After  that  time  regulations  were 
made  because  of  the  increasing  difficulties  with  the  Indians.  This 
trade  was  considered  of  such  importance  that  in  1766  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  colony  in  the  Illinois  country  was  strongly  urged. ^^ 
Philadelphia  was  to  be  one  of  the  chief  places  for  importing  Brit- 
ish manufactures  for  the  numerous  Indian  tribes  which  lived  near 
the  lakes  and  the  different  branches  of  the  Mississippi. 

Timber  as  a  product  for  exportation,  was  almost  as  import- 
ant as  grain  and  meat.  There  was  an  abundance  in  Pennsylvania, 
the  lower  counties,  and  West  Jersey.  The  existence  of  several 
saw  mills  in  the  seventeenth  century  shows  that  the  industry  had 
developed  from  the  first. ^^  They  became  numerous  along  the 
many  rivers  and  creeks,  which  were  a  great  advantage,  in  that 
they  furnished  water  power  to  run  the  mills,  as  well  as  the  means 
of  transporting  logs  to  the  mills  and  lumber  to  Philadelphia. 

Hickory  and  oak  were  made  into  barrels,  hogsheads,  and 
staves ;  and  walnut  was  considered  valuable  material  for  f urni- 


'*  Custom  House  Papers  in  the  Library  of  the  Historical  Society  of 
Pennsylvania. 

'^  Hanna,  C.  A.,  The  Trail  in  the  Wilderness,  Vol.  I,  p.  6,  taken  from 
the  writings  of  George  Croghan. 

^  Ibid.,  Vol.  n,  p.  325.  A  full  discussion  of  the  fur  trade  may  be  found 
in  this  book,  in  which  are  reprinted  extracts  from  the  Journals  of  George 
Croghan  who  was  called  "The  king  of  the  traders." 

Giesecke,  p.  53.  Skins  and  furs  were  the  only  commodities  upon  which 
export   duties    were   imposed    in    Pennsylvania. 

Laws  of  Pennsylvania,  1682-1700,  p.  138. 

Pennsylvania  Archives,  2nd  Series,  Vol.  II,  pp.  619-627,  for  names  of 
Indian  Traders  in  Pennsylvania,  1743-1776. 

"  C.  O.,  5  :67,  Reasons  for  Establishing  a  British  Colony  at  the  Illinois 
with  some  proposals  thereon. 

"Bishop,  American  Manufactures,  Vol.  I,  pp.  109-112. 


254  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

ture.^3  Unfortunately  this  lumber,  with  the  exception  of  that 
grown  in  West  Jersey,  could  not  be  used  as  a  naval  store  for 
Great  Britain.  The  surveyor-general  in  his  report  on  naval  sup- 
plies ignored  this  district  because  the  quality  of  its  timber  was 
so  very  inferior  to  that  grown  in  the  southern  provinces  and  New 
England.^'*  Consequently,  little  benefit  was  received  from  the 
bounty  which  Great  Britain  offered  on  masts  imported  from  the 
colonies. 

There  seems  to  be  no  reason  why  hemp,  which  was  another 
valuable  naval  store,  should  not  have  been  grown  in  abundance. 
In  Great  Britain,  where  there  was  a  great  demand  for  it,  it  could 
be  produced  only  at  a  high  cost.  Joshua  Gee  wrote  to  the  board 
of  trade,  in  1717,  that  the  bounty  on  hemp  should  be  continued 
for  twenty  years. ^^  His  advice  was  taken,  but  the  increase  in  the 
crop  in  no  way  justified  its  continuation.^^  Again,  in  1731,  Gov- 
ernor Gordon  recommended  the  raising  of  hemp,  because  of  the 
lack  of  products  suitable  for  exportation  to  Great  Britain.^'  Be- 
sides the  encouragement  of  the  mother  country  in  the  way  of 
bounties,  the  provincial  government  of  Pennsylvania  offered 
premiums  on  good  and  merchantable  hemp.  An  act  was  passed  in 
1722,  which  offered  a  bounty  of  one  penny  per  pound  on  hemp 
fit  for  exportation.^^  This  act  was  continued  from  time  to  time 
until  1731,  when  it  was  repealed. ^^  The  law  was  much  abused, 
since  it  was  very  difficult  to  detect  and  punish  those  who  brought 
in  bad  hemp  for  exportation.  Furthermore,  it  was  not  considered 
worth  while  to  continue  such  encouragement  when  so  little  was 
produced.  The  high  price  of  labor  was  probably  responsible  for 
the  failure  of  this  project. ^^ 

One  of  the  most  important  industries  was  that  of  ship  build- 


^  Colonial  Office,  5:1233. 

"  Admiralty  Secretary,  I,  4127. 

'•■C.  O.,  5:1265,  p.  114. 

"C.  O.,  5:1266,  p.  42. 

"  Ibid. 

"  Pennsylvania  Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  314. 

"Ibid.,  IV,  pp.  231-2. 

"C.  O.,  5:1268,  S.  44. 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  255 

inff.'^i  Salem  and  Burlino^ton  were  the  first  to  build  vessels,  but 
they  were  soon  surpassed  by  Philadelphia  which  was  a  recog- 
nized center  of  this  industry  in  1700.  Many  vessels  built  in  Sa- 
lem, Burlington,  Newcastle  and  Wilmington  were  brought  to 
Philadelphia  for  registration.  The  coastwise  and  West  Indian 
trade  offered  great  encouragement  to  ship  building.  Almost  all 
of  this  trade  employed  home  shipping.  Provincial  ships  were 
also  used  in  the  wine  trade.  Out  of  six  vessels  importing  Ma- 
deira wine,  in  1719-20,  two  were  built  and  registered  in  Philadel- 
phia.""^^  It  was  considered  very  important  to  use  vessels  built  in 
the  district,  because  they  were  exempt  from  the  tonnage  duties 
which  were  imposed  on  other  colonial  ships. •'^ 

Various  forces  were  at  work  which  retarded  the  development 
of  this  industry  in  all  of  the  continental  colonies.  British  mer- 
chants and  traders,  who  were  interested  in  ship  building  at  home, 
looked  with  increasing  alarm  upon  the  development  of  it  in  the 
colonies.  As  long  as  the  colonists  supplied  themselves  only  with 
coasting  vessels,  those  used  in  the  fisheries,  or  larger  ones  which 
were  made  to  convey  timber,  they  were  not  considered  as  danger- 
ous competitors.  But  when  they  began  to  build  ships  which  riv- 
alled those  made  in  Great  Britain,  the  merchants  complained  and 
urged  Parliament  through  petitions  to  discourage  colonial  ship- 
building.^4  Although  there  was  no  direct  legislation  on  this  sub- 
ject it  is  quite  evident  that  the  industry  did  not  fulfill  its  early 
promise.  While  Richard  Penn  said  in  1774  that  ships  of  three 
hundred  or  four  hundred  tons  were  built  very  expeditiously  in 
Pennsylvania,*^^  the  development  of  ship  building  had  not  kept 


'^Ibid.,  C.  O.,  5:1266,  R.  7. 

'==C.  O.,  5:1266,  R.  18. 

« Pennsylvania  Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  II,  p.  384;  III,  165;  V.  353; 
VIII,  42. 

"  Chalmers,  Revolt  of  the  Colonies,  Vol.  I,  pp.  387,  388. 

^'  House  of  Lords  Manuscript.  Examination  of  Richard  Penn  before 
the  House  of  Lords. 


256  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

pace  with  the  advancement  of  trade  and  the  increase  of  popu- 
lation. 6*^ 

In  New  England,  ship  building  was  closely  connected  with  the 
fishing  industry.  This  was  partially  responsible  for  her  superior- 
ity in  the  former.  In  the  Delaware  district,  fisheries  never  be- 
came important.  It  is  true  that  the  first  boats  and  vessels  built  on 
the  Delaware  were  used  in  the  fishing  trade  ;^'  and  William  Penn 
expressed  a  hope,  in  1701,  that  the  whale  fisheries  would  be 
developed,  so  that  returns  could  be  made  to  England  in  whale 
oil  and  whale  bone.^^  Furthermore,  Cape  May  and  Burling- 
ton counties  were  supposed  to  have  a  flourishing  fishing 
trade.  Governor  Cox  mentions  the  products  of  the  former  county 
as  consisting  of  whale  bone  and  whale  oil.  Nevertheless,  com- 
pared with  other  districts,  the  importance  of  fisheries  was  negli- 
gible. It  was  said  that  Pennsylvania  was  allowed  to  import  salt 
free  of  duty  from  southern  Europe  for  a  fishery  that  never  ex- 
isted.^^  This  was  scarcely  true  because  there  were  many  acts 
passed  by  the  provincial  assembly  of  Pennsylvania  for  the  devel- 
opment of  fisheries  in  the  Delaware,  Susquehannah,  and  Lehigh 


°*  The    following 

table 

indicates 

the   relative    increase    of   population. 

shipbuilding  and  trade  with  England. 

Approximate           Years 

No.  Ships  Ton'ge 

Exports  to 

Exports  from 

Population                         ] 

Built  in 

Pa. 

England 

England 

40,000^    ....     1722 

10 

458 

i4,499    Os.    Od.s 

£22,505    Os.    Od.s 

1723 

13 

507 

8,332    0       0 

15,993  19       47 

1724 

19 

959i 

4,057    0       OS 

30,324    0       0 

250,0002    ....     1769 

22 

1,469 

26,111     3       7 

199,909  17     11 

1770 

16 

2,354 

28,104    5     11 

134,881     0       0 

1771 

21 

1,307^ 

31,615  19       96 

728,744    0       06 

IC.  O.,  5:1266,  R.  7. 
2  Rossiter,  W.,  A  Century  of  Population,  p.  6. 

i  Votes  and  Proceedings  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, Vol.  Ill,  p.  9. 

4  Alacpherson,  D.,  Annals  of  Commerce,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  570. 

5  B.  T.  Commercial  Series,  Vol.  414. 

<5  H.  of  L.  Mss.,  Table  of  Exports  and  Imports  to  England  from  North 
American  Colonies. 

7  Pitkins,  T.,  Commerce,  p.  15. 

s  De  Bow,  J.  D.  B.,  The  Industrial  Review,  Vol.  I,  p.  313. 

^'  Bishop,  American  Manufacturers,  Vol.  I,  p.  69. 

*^C.  O.,  5:1289,  pp.  203-4. 

"*  Chalmers'  Revolt  of  the  Colonies,  Vol.  I,  p.  452. 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  257 

rivers."*^  The  river  fisheries  no  doubt  contributed  to  the  export 
trade  of  Philadelphia,  but  the  amount  was  probably  much  less 
than  that  imported  from  New  England  and  Nova  Scotia  for  re- 
exportation. 

It  was  recognized  in  the  beginning  of  the  century  that  iron  ore 
existed  in  great  abundance  in  Pennsylvania.  Joshua  Gee  wrote 
to  the  board  of  trade,  in  1717,  that  it  would  be  wise  to  offer  a 
bounty  of  £3  on  bar  iron  and  il  \0s.  on  cast  iron.'^^  He  made  a 
further  suggestion  that  "  it  will  be  necessary  to  lay  a  duty  on 
iron  and  hemp  consumed  in  that  country,  that  England  may  not 
be  deprived  of  the  trade  they  derive  from  those  commodities  man- 
ufactured and  sent  to  the  plantations. "'^^  i^  the  same  year  Sir 
William  Keith  wrote  to  the  board  of  trade  that  he  had  found  in 
Pennsylvania  a  great  deal  of  iron  ore,  which  was  worked  up  to 
such  an  extent  that  the  importation  of  iron  from  Great  Britain  was 
discouraged.  He  sent  several  samples  of  this  ore  to  the  merchants 
in  London  with  a  description  of  the  places  where  it  was  found. '''^ 
Keith  no  doubt  overestimated  the  possibilities  of  manufacturing 
iron  in  the  province.  Several  years  later  Gordon  wrote  to  the 
board  of  trade  that  iron  furnaces  had  been  set  up,  but  that  they 
had  been  used  only  two  years. '^^  The  high  price  of  labor  made 
it  impossible  for  them  to  compete  successfully  with  the  Swedish 
trade  in  manufactured  iron.'^^ 

The  board  of  trade  had  been  persuaded  at  an  early  date  that 
a  bounty  on  iron  would  be  beneficial.  The  difficulty  lay  in  ob- 
taining the  necessary  parliamentary  legislation.  Finally  an  act 
was  passed,  in  1750,  repealing  the  duties  on  iron  bars,  which  were 
imported  into  London,  and  on  pig  iron,  which  was  imported  into 
the  out-ports."^    At  the  same  time,  it  was  forbidden  to  erect  mills 


'"  Pennsylvania  Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  VIII,  p.  467. 
"C.  O.,  5:1265,  S.  114. 
"C.  O.,  5:1266,  S.  114,  140. 
"C.  O.,  5:1268,  S.  34. 
'' Ibid.,  S.  44. 

"  Chatham  Papers,  Bun.  97.     Reasons  for  Allowing  the  Importation  of 
Bar  Iron  from  America. 
"23  Geo.  II,  c.  29. 


258  Smith  College;  Studies  in  History 

in  the  colonies  for  the  making  of  steel.     There  were  in  Pennsyl- 
vania and  Delaware  the  following  plants : 

1.  A  mill  or  engine  for  slitting  and  rolling  iron  in  Thornbury 
township,  Chester  County. 

2.  A  pleating  forge  to  work  with  a  tilt-hammer  in  Byberry 
township,  Philadelphia  County.  This  had  not  been  used  for  nine 
months. 

3.  Two  furnaces  for  making  steel  in  Pennsylvania,  both  of 
which  were  in  Philadelphia.'^''' 

From  this  it  would  seem  that  the  manufacturing  of  iron  and 
steel  was  not  done  on  a  large  scale.  It  has  been  suggested  that  it 
was  ''merely  an  accessory  to  the  ship  building  industry,  which  de- 
manded that  certain  parts  should  be  made  of  iron  and  fitted  into 
the  ship.  On  account  of  this,  these  parts  could  not  be  imported 
from  Europe  because  an  exact  fit  was  required. "^^ 

The  act  of  1750  does  not  seem  to  have  given  the  desired  stim- 
ulus. Of  the  ten  forges  existing  in  1756  all  but  two  or  three  had 
been  erected  before  the  act  was  passed.^''  The  output  of  these  did 
not  show  the  increase  that  might  have  been  expected  from  such  a 
measure.  From  the  account  of  William  Denny,  the  deputy  gov- 
ernor, in  1756,  it  can  be  seen  that  the  output  of  eight  forges  was 
as  follows  during  the  years  1749-1756:^*^ 

Total  Tons     1st  Year    Average 
Tons  Tons 

1.  Pine  Forge    747  103  124 

2.  Foot  Forge   1749-1754  313  IZ           78 

3.  Glascow    1750-1756  595  108  119 

4.  Pottsgrove    1755-1756  64 

5.  Coventry    1749-1756  339  45            48 

6.  Windsor     1749-1756  495  90            82^^ 

7.  Helenshed    1749-1756  480  59            69 

8.  Minor  Forge  1751-1756  342  45            57 

The  wool  act^^  of  1699  brought  as  little  hardship  upon  the 


77 
7S 
79 


C.  O.,  5:1273. 

Beer,  G.  L.,  Mss.  notes  based  on  Colonial  Office  Papers. 

Swank,  T.  W.,  Iron  in  All  Ages,  p.  113.  Mantauney  Creek  Furnace 
was  erected  in  1716;  Coventry  in  1720;  and  Cornwall  and  Warwick  in 
1740.  It  is  also  stated  that  in  1740  many  furnaces  and  other  iron  works 
existed  in  New  Jersey. 

C.  O.,  5:1275,  W.  25. 

Statutes  of  the  Realm,  1699.    10-11  William  III,  c.  10. 


80, 
SI 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  259 

colonies  as  the  iron  act.  It  was  primarily  intended  to  affect  Ire- 
land, but  the  colonies  were  included,  through  the  fear  that  in  the 
future  the  colonists  might  take  to  manufacturing  their  own  wool. 
Conditions  at  that  time  did  not  favour  the  production  of  wool 
and  there  was  no  intercolonial  trade  in  this  commodity.  More- 
over, the  wording  of  the  statute  gives  no  indication  that  it  was 
desired  to  discourage  the  production  of  wool  or  the  spinning  or 
weaving  of  it  in  the  various  households.  It  merely  prohibited  the 
exportation  of  the  raw  or  manufactured  material  from  one  colony 
to  another.  William  Penn  criticised  the  act  on  the  grounds  that 
it  was  geographically  impossible  for  it  to  be  executed. ^^  Jt  often 
happened  that  a  man  living  near  the  boundary  of  one  colony,  let 
us  say  Pennsylvania,  found  it  to  his  advantage  to  sell  the  wool  or 
yarn  produced  on  his  farm  to  his  neighbors  in  ^Maryland  in  ex- 
change for  tobacco  and  rice.  As  this  possibility  must  have  oc- 
curred to  those  who  framed  the  act,  it  is  hardly  possible  that  they 
considered  such  instances  of  any  importance. 

There  was  little  danger  of  this  act  being  disobeyed  in  Penn- 
sylvania, the  lower  counties  and  West  Jersey.  Sheep  were  raised 
and  domestic  manufacturing  was  carried  on,  but  there  were  no 
serious  attempts  to  establish  the  business  on  a  commercial  basis. 
This  was  due  partly  to  the  high  cost  of  labor  and  partly  to  the 
fact  that  it  was  fashionable  to  wear  English  clothing. 

The  distillation  of  sugar  and  grain  was  a  very  profitable  in- 
dustry. In  exchange  for  the  lumber  and  provisions  sent  to  the 
West  Indies,  large  quantities  of  sugar,  molasses  and  rum  were 
brought  back  to  Philadelphia.  Although  the  rum  that  was  made 
in  the  West  Indies,  particularly  in  Jamaica,  was  superior  to  all, 
there  was  considerable  competition  in  its  production  in  the  conti- 
nental colonies.  Distilleries  were  multiplied  as  fast  as  saw  mills 
and  grist  mills,  and  formed  with  them  the  basis  of  the  export 
trade  of  Philadelphia. 

There  were  two  classes  of  manufactories  within  this  district 
before  1765.  Grist  mills,  saw  mills,  distilleries,  shipbuilding  and 
iron  works  belonged  to  the  first.  The  British  government  never  in- 


^=C.  O.,  5:1289,  p.  25. 


260  Smith  ColIvEge  Studies  in  History 

terfered  with  the  first  three  of  these,  and  its  influence  upon  the 
others  is  doubtful.  For  the  most  part  they  were  left  free  to  de- 
velop as  much  as  the  demand  for  their  products  allowed.  The 
second  class  included  all  household  manufactures.  They  were 
numerous  and  developed  quite  naturally  in  connection  with  farm 
life.  There  are  conflicting  statements  concerning  the  extent  to 
which  this  system  prevailed.  Coloniel  William  Hart  said  that  the 
inhabitants  wore  the  same  clothing  and  had  the  same  utensils  as 
were  used  in  Great  Britain. ^^  sjr  William  Keith  claimed  that  the 
necessary  clothing  came  from  Great  Britain  and  was  paid  for  by 
means  of  the  export  trade  in  wheat  to  the  West  Indies. ^^  These 
reports  were  probably  the  result  of  observations  made  in  Phil- 
adelphia or  other  towns  where  British  goods  were  in  great  de- 
mand. Governor  Gordon  states  clearly  that  the  farmers  made 
clothing  of  the  coarser  sort  for  themselves  and  that  the  Irish  and 
German  settlers  sold  linen  of  their  own  making  to  their  neigh- 
bors.^^ It  is  quite  evident,  however,  that  the  only  reason  why 
manufactures  of  the  second  class  existed  may  be  found  in  the 
colonists'  inability  to  pay  for  British  goods. 

(3)  Trade  Routes 

As  the  people  of  the  Delaware  district  became  more  prosper- 
ous their  demand  for  European  goods  steadily  increased,  but  as 
their  own  products  were  unsuitable  for  direct  exchange  with 
Great  Britain,  they  were  compelled  to  develop  circuitous  routes 
of  trade.  By  this  means  the  desired  manufactures  were  pur- 
chased and  large  profits  were  realized  on  a  carrying  trade,  which 
made  Philadelphia  of  considerable  importance  as  an  entreport  on 
the  American  continent.  The  great  mass  of  colonial  regulations 
made  Philadelphia  of  considerable  importance  as  an  entrepot  on 
trading  with  certain  parts  of  the  world.  In  spite  of  these  restric- 
tions, however,  many  profitable  channels  of  trade  were  discovered. 
In  order  to  understand  fully  the  vast  net  work  of  the  commerce  of 


*'C.  O.,  5:1266,  R.  7. 
^Ibid.,  R.  42. 
"^Ihid.,  S.  15. 


Trade  of  the:  Delaware;  District  261 

this  district  in  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  every  route 
should  be  traced,  and  if  possible  vessels  taking  very  circuitous 
routes  should  be  followed  closely.  Space  will  not  permit  such  a 
detailed  account,  but  an  examination  of  the  tables  of  exports  and 
imports  will  indicate  partially  the  extent  of  the  Delaware  com- 
merce, and  its  dependence  upon  non-British  trade  for  its  economic 
justification  as  a  unit  of  the  empire.^^ 

The  chief  routes  from  Philadelphia  were  those  going  to  the 
other  colonial  ports,  the  West  Indies,  the  Wine  Islands,  Southern 
Europe  and  the  British  Isles.  There  was  scarcely  a  port  in  the 
continental  colonies,  with  which  this  district  did  not  have  com- 
mercial relations.  The  numerous  harbors,  rivers,  creeks  and 
bays  along  the  coast  offered  many  opportunities  for  trade.  In  the 
amount  of  tonnage  employed  and  as  a  means  for  gaining  re- 
mittances to  Great  Britain  these  routes  were  very  significant. 
From  the  southern  ports  various  commodities  were  imported, 
both  for  home  consumption  and  for  re-exportation,  such  as  rice, 
tobacco,  tar,  pitch,  turpentine,  Indian  corn,  wheat,  rye  and  deer 
skins.  For  these  the  following  were  sent  in  exchange :  bread  and 
flour  made  within  the  district;  sugar  imported  from  the  West 
Indies ;  rum  and  molasses  of  West  Indian,  New  England,  or  home 
production;  and  goods  of  various  sorts  imported  from  the  conti- 
nent of  Europe.  Although  the  southern  ports  enjoyed  a  profit- 
able direct  trade  with  Great  Britain  by  which  they  were  able 
to  import  European  manufactures,  nevertheless  they  import- 
ed a  considerable  amount  of  European  goods  through  Philadel- 
phia.^''' 

The  trade  with  Maryland  and  New  York  was  not  at  all  large. 
Maryland  imported  agricultural  products  from  Western  Pennsyl- 
vania by  way  of  the  Susquehannah.     Her  exports  were  very  sim- 


*°  See  Appendix  II. 

"  C.  O.,  5  :1499,  Shipping  Returns  of  Virginia. 

Treasury  Board  Papers,  461,  Shipping  Returns  of  Virginia. 

C.  O.,  5:511,  Shipping  Returns  of  North  Carolina. 

C.  O.,  5:1228,  Shipping  Returns  of  South  Carolina. 

C.  O.,  5  :710,  Shipping  Returns  of  Georgia. 

C.  O.,  5  :573,  Shipping  Returns  of  Florida. 


262  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

ilar  to  those  of  the  colonies  south  of  her,  which,  as  we  have  seen, 
sent  their  produce  to  Philadelphia.  The  intense  jealousy  existing 
between  Pennsylvania  and  Maryland  caused  their  relations  to  be 
almost  negligible.  With  New  York  there  was  a  close  competition 
in  the  exportation  of  agricultural  products  and  lumber. ^^  A  few 
exchanges  were  made  in  bread,  flour  and  European  goods,  but  the 
shipping  returns  show  that  very  few  vessels  were  cleared  annually 
from  Philadelphia  to  New  York. 

The  fisheries  and  peltries  were  the  main  features  of  the  import 
trade  from  New  England^'*  and  Nova  Scotia.^^  The  prepara- 
tion of  fish  for  exportation  was  a  thriving  industry  in  both  places, 
and  consequently  salt  was  in  great  demand.  Since  salt  could  be 
imported  into  Philadelphia  free  of  duty,  it  was  profitable  to  ex- 
change salt  for  prepared  fish.^^  Some  flour,  bread  and  locally 
manufactured  articles,  such  as  rum,  cabinet  ware  and  soap,  were 
also  sent  to  New  England  and  Nova  Scotia. 

The  West  Indian  trade  was  the  most  important  of  all,  being  in 
fact  the  basis  of  the  commercial  life  of  this  district. ^^  f  hg  in_ 
habitants  of  these  islands  were  almost  exclusively  engaged  in  pro- 
ducing sugar,  rum,  and  molasses,  together  with  a  little  cofifee, 
cocoa  and  cotton.^^  They  demanded,  in  return  for  these  products, 
provisions  of  all  kinds  and  lumber  in  large  quantities  to  be  used 
in  making  barrels,  hogsheads,  and  casks.  Naturally  England 
wished  to  supply  the  need,  since  she  had  provisions  for  exporta- 
tion and  desired  above  all  to  import  raw  materials ;  but  the  con- 
tinental colonies  were  geographically  in  a  better  position  to  meet 
the  demand.     Hence,  in  spite  of  the  close  competition  with  the 


''C.  O.,  5:1228,  Shipping  Returns  of  New  York. 
'"C.  O.,  5:851,  Shipping  Returns  of  New  England. 


'"  C.  O.,  5  :221,  Shipping  Returns  of  Nova  Scotia. 
"C.  O.,  5:851,  Shipping  Returns  of  New  England. 
100,000  hhds.  of  salt  were  sent  to   Boston  from   Philadelphia  in   one 
quarter. 

"'AdmiraUy,  592. 

C.  O.,  142:19,  Shipping  Returns  of  the  West  Indies. 
C.  O.,  76:4,  Shipping  Returns  of  the  West  Indies. 
C.  O.,  33:17,  Shipping  Returns  of  the  West  Indies. 
Pipe  Office,  Declared  Accounts — Customs,  Roll  1265. 
''Customs,  16:1. 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  263 

mother-country,  the  Delaware  district,  whose  himber  was  par- 
ticularly adapted  to  West  Indian  uses,  controlled  a  great  part  of 
the  trade. 

Of  the  British  West  Indies,  Jamaica  furnished  the  best  market 
for  bread,  flour,  meat,  fish,  timber  and  soap.^^  Joshua  Gee,  in 
discussing  the  importance  of  Jamaica  to  the  Pennsylvania  trade, 
said,  "The  Spanish  West  Indies  are  reached  by  way  of  this  island 
where  corn  and  provisions  are  sent.  ...  If  this  trade  be 
properly  nursed  up,  it  may  draw  the  Spanish  coast  very  much  to 
depend  on  us  for  a  supply  of  flower,  biskets,  etc."  The  imports 
from  Jamaica  were  not  heavy.  Many  vessels  were  sent  back  to 
Philadelphia  in  ballast,  while  some  went  in  ballast  to  other  is- 
lands, chiefly  for  sugar,  rum  and  molasses. 

The  Leeward  Islands  supplemented  the  trade  with  Jamaica.^® 
These  islands,  especially  Dominica,  were  rich  in  cocoa  and  cofifee, 
besides  producing  sugar  and  some  cotton.  Great  Britain  in  her 
direct  trade  with  them  could  supply  the  necessary  amount  of  food- 
stuffs, and,  consequently,  it  was  difficult  for  the  Delaware  traders 
to  make  a  favorable  exchange  of  products.  A  demand  for  lum- 
ber, however,  gave  them  a  foothold  and,  in  time,  they  began  to 
compete  with  the  mother-country  in  supplying  food  stuffs,  but, 
even  when  the  trade  was  unfavorable,  products  of  these  islands 
were  considered  of  such  importance  that  it  was  worth  while  for 
the  traders  to  sell  their  goods  in  Jamaica  and  then  to  sail  in  ballast 
to  the  Leeward  Islands  for  a  return  cargo.  Attempts  to  trade 
with  Barbadoes,  Granada,  the  Grenadines  and  Tobago  met  with 
greater  competition.^*^  These  had  always  been  Great  Britain's 
prize  sugar  colonies,  with  whom  she  carried  on  a  flourishing  trade. 
The  shipping  returns  indicate  that  few  products  were  imported 
directly  from  the  American  mainland,  although  many  undoubt- 
edly came  through  the  neighboring  islands. 

Extensive  and  profitable  as  the  West  Indian  trade  was,  it  was 
not  sufficient  to  dispose  of  all  of  the  surplus  agricultural  products 


"*  C.  O.,  142:19,  Shipping  Returns  of  Jamaica. 

'^  C.  O.,  16  :4,  Shipping  Returns  of  the  Leeward  Islands. 

°®  C.  O.,  33:17,  Shipping  Returns  of  the  Windward  Islands. 


*l^ 


264  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

and  lumber.  A  demand  for  American  grain,  during  the  years  of 
scarcity  in  Europe  had  opened  a  trade  with  the  southern  ports  of^'^- 
that  continent.  The  wine  trade  with  Madeira  and  the  Azores 
had  been  carried  on  from  an  early  date,  and  since  these  islands 
were  en  route  to  southern  Europe  this  channel  became  very  im- 
portant. Grain  was  the  basis  of  the  trade,  but  there  was  also  a 
market  for  other  products.  It  was  reported,  in  1720,  that  Penn- 
sylvania traded  with  Lisbon,  Cadiz  and  Alicante,  sending  pipe 
staves,  planks,  timber  and  also  fish  which  had  been  purchased 
from  New  England.^'  Some  vessels  returned  to  the  Isle  of  May 
and  loaded  salt,  others  went  to  the  Madeiras  for  wine,  which 
they  sold  in  the  West  Indies.  The  usual  course  was  to  take  goods 
which  could  be  sold  in  Great  Britain,  or  cash  for  products,  and 
return  by  way  of  England  to  purchase  manufactures.  In  the  early 
part  of  the  eighteenth  century  this  trade  was  only  casual,  since  it 
depended  upon  the  scarcity  of  grain  in  Europe.  Deputy  Gov- 
ernor Gordon  said,  in  1731,  that,  in  consequence  of  the  recent 
poor  harvests  in  Europe,  Pennsylvania  had  shipped  40,000  bushels 
of  grain  to  Europe — Ireland,  Lisbon  and  the  Straits — ,  "but  when 
there  are  plentifull  crops  we  ship  little  or  none."^^  In  another 
connection  he  said  that  the  demand  for  flour  and  bread  was  un- 
certain, as  it  depended  on  the  crops  in  other  countries.  Later  the 
demand  became  more  regular.  The  deficit  created  by  the  long 
wars  in  Europe,  which  America  was  called  upon  to  meet,  and 
the  years  of  poor  harvests  after  1757  put  the  trade  on  a  firmer 
foundation. ^^ 

The  wine  trade  was  significant  in  itself,  apart  from  its  con- 
nection with  the  trade  to  southern  Europe.  Provisions  and  lum- 
ber were  sent  to  the  Wine  Islands  and  exchanged  for  wines,  and 
bills  of  remittances.    It  was  estimated,  in  1731,  that  from  15,000 


"C.  O.,  5:1266,  R.  7. 

''C.  O.,  5:1268,  S.  34. 

"'Adm.  Papers,  II,  3837. 

A  letter  from  the  British  Consul,  April  10,  1767,  in  which  it  is  stated 
that  a  vessel  from  Philadelphia  was  at  Leghorn.  This  is  one  of  many 
indications  that  the  traders  of  the  Delaware  district  traded  with  southern 
P-urope. 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  265 

to  20,000  bushels  of  wheat,  some  Indian  corn,  and  some  bread 
were  annually  exported  to  the  Madeiras. ^*^^  Wine  from  these  is- 
lands had  been  for  a  long  time  a  favorite  drink  in  England,  and, 
as  its  importation  into  the  colonies  grew,  it  enjoyed  the  same 
reputation  there.  Furthermore,  since  Madeira  wine  was  allowed 
to  be  imported  directly  from  the  place  of  growth,  there  were 
heavy  imports,  much  of  which  was  re-exported.  In  some  in- 
stances, the  traders  took  the  wine  directly  to  the  West  Indies, 
where  it  found  a  ready  market.^o^ 

Thus,  by  means  of  the  trade  with  other  American  ports,  the 
British  and  foreign  West  Indies,  the  southern  European  countries 
and  the  wine  islands,  the  traders  of  the  Delaware  district  man- 
aged to  dispose  of  the  surplus  agricultural  products  and  to  sup- 
ply themselves  with  articles  which  could  be  sold  in  Great  Britain, 
or  with  cash  to  pay  for  European  manufactures.  In  the  early 
days  of  the  eighteenth  century,  when  tobacco  was  grown  in  the 
district,  there  had  been  a  profitable  direct  trade  with  Great  Brit- 
ain, but  even  at  that  time  part  of  the  cargoes  sent  from  Philadel- 
phia consisted  of  goods  which  had  been  imported  previously  from 
other  places.  A  report  of  the  inspector-general,  Charles  Dave- 
nant,  dated  March  21,  1707,  illustrates  this  point.  It  gives  an 
account  of  goods  imported  into  England  from  Pennsylvania,  and 
the  duties  thereon,  from  Christmas,  1698,  to  Christmas,  1705. ^"2 
The  total  amount  of  duties  paid  was  £36,598,  or  an  average  of 
£5,227  annually.  Of  this  sum  tobacco  contributed  about  90%,  or 
£32,419.  In  addition  to  the  tobacco,  226  tons  of  logwood  were 
imported,  paying  £1,074  duty.     The  other  articles  imported  were 

""C.  O.,  5:1266,  S.  34. 

'"  C.  O.,  5:1265,  S.  176.  Imports  into  Pennsylvania  of  Madeira  and 
western  island  wine  from  Christmas,  1715  to  Cliristmas,  1718: 

Pipes  Hhds.  Casks 

Madeira  wine    655  9  18 

Fayel  wine   83  2 

Passado   wine    3 

Vinegar     3 

C.  O.,  5:1266,  R.  18.  During  the  year  from  Christmas,  1719,  to  Christ- 
mas, 1720,  there  were  imported  in  six  vessels,  270  pipes,  7  hhds,  and  7 
quarter  casks. 

"'C.  O.,  5:1263,  Q.  99. 


266  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

drugs,  ginger,  rice,  sugar,  indigo  and  molasses  in  small  quantities, 
and  a  great  number  of  skins  of  all  kinds.  Of  these  commodities 
only  tobacco  and  skins  were  native  products,  the  others  being  the 
result  of  trade  with  other  ports,  especially  those  of  the  West 
Indies.  As  tobacco  ceased  to  be  cultivated  and  bread  and  flour 
became  the  staple  products,  the  exports  to  Great  Britain  con- 
sisted more  and  more  of  commodities  which  had  been  previously 
imported. ^"^^  A  comparison  of  a  list  of  goods  exported  to  Lon- 
don in  1765  with  an  account  of  goods  and  merchandise  imported 
into  England  from  Pennsylvania,  Christmas,  1699,  to  Christmas, 
1700,  shows  to  what  extent  re-exportation  had  increased. ^"^^ 

Even  with  the  great  increase  of  re-exported  goods  to  Great 
Britain  before  1763,  the  excess  of  imports  over  exports  became 
greater  each  year.  In  1700,  the  exports  almost  equaled  the  im- 
ports, but,  in  1763,  they  were  only  13%  of  the  imports. ^"^  This 
indicates  that  the  amount  of  remittances  paid  down  was  very  large 
or  that  the  Delaware  merchants  were  continually  the  debtors  of 
the  British.  The  latter  supposition  is  substantiated  by  a  report 
which  was  made  in  1791,  giving  an  account  of  the  debts,  together 
with  the  interest  thereon,  due  to  the  British  merchants  before 
1776.  According  to  this  statement  Pennsylvania  owed  £229,- 
452  4s.  4^.100 

It  is  impossible  to  estimate  with  any  degree  of  accuracy  the 
value  of  the  legal  trade  of  this  district  in  all  of  its  channels.  The 
early  accounts  are  all  more  or  less  vague.  Colonel  William  Hart 
in  1720  said  that  the  annual  produce  of  Pennsylvania,  including 
the  home  trade,  was  £100,000,  and  that  the  annual  consumption 
of  British  manufactures  was  valued  between  £50,000  and  £60,000. 
More  accurate  estimates  can  be  made  for  the  later  years  because 
greater  demands  were  made  upon  the  customs  officers  to  send  in 
carefully  prepared   shipping  returns.     The   exports   to   England 


'"'C.  O.,  5:1268,  S.  44. 

"■'Appendices  I,  II. 

"'Appendix  IV. 

"'  Chatham  Papers,  Bundle  343,  The  sum  Total  of  the  Debts  due  by  the 
respective  American  States  to  the  Merchants  and  Traders  of  Great  Britain 
previous  to  the  year  1776  with  interest  on  the  same. 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  267 

alone  in  1763  amounted  to  £38,228  lOi-.  2d.  and  the  imports  from 
England  to  £284,152  16^.  W.^*'' 

(4)  Illicit  Trade  Before  i'/6s 

On  account  of  the  enormous  amount  of  smuggling  during  the 
eighteenth  century,  it  would  be  incorrect  to  rely  upon  the  shipping 
returns  of  the  customs  for  an  accurate  account  of  trade.  This 
practice  existed  throughout  the  empire,  but  there  was  no  place 
where  it  prevailed  with  more  impunity  than  at  times  in  the  Dela- 
ware district.  The  physical  features  of  the  river  and  bay  gave 
many  opportunities  for  evading  the  navigation  laws.^*'^  In  the 
investigation  over  the  boundary  line  between  Pennsylvania  and 
Maryland  this  fact  was  pointed  out.  A  pilot  who  had  served  for 
thirty  years  said  that  there  were  on  the  east  side  of  the  bay 
"harbours  fit  for  trade  and  shipping,  viz.,  Morris's  River  and  Co- 
hansic  Creek.  i\nd  on  the  east  side  of  Delaware  River,  Salem 
Creek,  Timber  Creek  and  Ankokus  Creek — and  that  there  is  on 
the  west  side  of  the  said  bay  Prince  Book  Bay  and  on  the  west 
side  of  the  said  river  St.  George's  Creek,  Christian  Creek,  Derby 
Creek,  and  Schuykill  River."io9 

Besides  the  difficulties  attending  the  long  coast  line  made  by 
numerous  rivers  and  creeks,  there  were  a  few  islands,  between 
the  provinces  of  Pennsylvania  and  New  Jersey,  which  were  not 
included  in  the  bounds  of  the  grants  of  either  province.  Petitions 
to  the  governors  of  these  provinces  indicate  that  they  often  served 
as  places  of  refuge  for  unprincipled  men,  committing  ofifences  in 
the  neighbouring  provinces,  as  well  as  suitable  places  for  contra- 
band goods. ^^° 

From  the  beginning  of  the  history  of  the  colony  traders  evaded 
the  navigation  laws.  In  1699  the  board  of  trade,  acting  on  the 
advice  of  Robert  Quary,  brought  serious  charges  of  smuggling 


"'  See  Appendix,  IV. 

""  Addit.  Mss.  15484,  Ports,  Districts  and  Towns  of  America,  1770.     In 


the  discussion  of  the  trade  boundaries  the  lack  of  supervision  was  noted. 
"'  Pennsylvania  Archives,  2nd  Series,  Vol.  XVI,  p.  747. 
"°  Domestic  Entry  Book,  140. 
Col.  S.  P.  Domestic  Home  Office  Papers. 


268  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

against  Penn's  colony. ^  They  demanded  the  repeal  of  the  law 
passed  in  1699  which  made  all  breaches  of  trade  laws  cognizable 
in  their  common  law  courts  of  record,  that  Colonel  William 
Markham  be  removed  from  the  office  of  lieutenant  governor,  that 
closer  obedience  be  given  to  the  admiralty  courts  and  greater  en- 
couragement offered  to  the  officer  of  the  customs,  and  that  piracy 
be  suppressed.^12  pgnn  decided  to  go  out  to  the  colony  and  to 
take  charge  of  the  government  himself.  His  presence  at  first 
gave  great  satisfaction.  He  procured  the  enactment  of  a  law 
forbidding  trade  to  Madagascar  or  Natal,  the  chief  centers  of 
piratical  trade,^!^  and  another  law,  obliging  the  king's  officers  to 
weigh  all  tobacco  casks  before  shipment,  in  order  to  do  away 
with  frauds  in  the  penny  a  pound  duty.^^^ 

The  trouble  was  settled  for  a  short  time  only.  Quary  accused 
Penn  of  encroaching  upon  the  admiralty  jurisdiction,  and  said 
that  illegal  trade  continued-^^^  For  this  reason,  the  board  of 
trade  recommended  in  March,  1701,  that  the  proprietary  provinces 
should  be  placed  on  the  same  level  of  dependency  as  the  other 
colonies,^ i<^  without  prejudice  to  the  property  rights,  and  in  the 
same  year  a  bill  to  that  effect  was  introduced  and  considered  in 
the  house  of  lords. i^'^  Penn  answered  these  charges  in  several 
despatches.  On  December  31st,  1700,  he  wrote  that  he  had  made 
himself  unpopular  to  some  in  the  colony  by  his  stand  on  these 
questions.iis  Three  months  later,  he  stated  that  the  amount  of 
smuggling  in  Pennsylvania  was  very  small,  and  that  its  prosper- 
ity was  not  due  to  unlawful  practices.  "For  indirect  trade  I  can- 
not upon  my  best  observations  find  our  peoples  much  blamable. 
Some  few  have,  and  still  visit  Curagoa,  and  this  can  not  be  helped, 


'"C.  O.,  5:1288,  p.  11. 

^"^Ibid.,  pp.  98  et  seq. 

"'C.  O.,  5:1275,  pp.  248-50. 

In  one  seizure  a  parcel  of  East  India  Goods  from  Madagascar  was 
found  without  a  cocket.  A  valuation  of  £150  was  placed  upon  it,  al- 
though the  goods  were  worth  £1,000. 

"^C.  O.,  5:1288,  pp.  201-2. 

"^  Ibid.,  pp.  413  ct  seq. 

""C.  O.,  5:1289,  p.  16. 

"'C.  O.,  5:1289,  pp.  47-48. 

'''Ibid. 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  269 

as  the  coast  is  150  miles  long  and  there  are  no  waiters. "^^^  On 
the  2d  of  July,  1701,  he  wrote  that  the  country  was  improving, 
not  by  "piracy  or  forbidden  trade,  but  honest  labour  and  sobriety, 
and  I  wish  them  that  have  recommended  themselves  by  their 
officiousness,  or  would  do  so  (having  little  else  than  shipping  to 
^  He  upon)  were  half  as  honest  and  useful  and  honourable  as  those 
they  have  faulted."i2o 

After  receiving  the  report  of  the  board  of  trade  to  the  house 
of  lords  and  house  of  commons,  Penn  sent  another  despatch  on  the 
26th  of  August,  1701,  in  which  he  again  denied  that  he  had  op- 
posed the  admiralty  jurisdiction,  or  that  Pennsylvania  was  guilty 
of  an  extensive  illegal  trade.  He  strongly  opposed  the  bill,  while 
it  was  pending  in  the  house  of  lords. ^-^  A  little  later  he  returned 
to  England  and,  through  his  influence,  the  bill  was  defeated.^-^ 

At  this  time  the  charges  of  smuggling  concerned  the  trade  in 
tobacco,  which  was  the  chief  article  of  export.  Large  quantities 
were  taken  to  Scotland  and  subsequently  smuggled  into  England. 
It  was  thought  that  this  was  very  prejudicial  to  England,  both  in 
defrauding  the  exchequer  of  revenue  and  allowing  Scotch  manu- 
factures to  be  sent  back  in  return.  Consequently,  vigorous  ef- 
forts were  made  to  counteract  the  trade.  Governor  Nicholson, 
of  Maryland,  appointed  Captain  Meech  to  cruise  in  the  waters 
adjacent  to  his  colony  for  the  purpose  of  stopping  illegal  trade. 
Some  instances  connected  with  his  task  reveal  the  amount  to 
which  Pennsylvania  engaged  in  this  contraband  trade.  Captain 
Meech  found  that  a  man  by  the  name  of  Hamilton,  who  had  been 
a  trader  in  Virginia  for  a  number  of  years,  was  now  engaged  in 
smuggling  tobacco  into  England  via  Scotland,  and  bringing  back 
Scotch  merchandise,  forging  certificates  and  even  going  so 
far  as  to  make  false  seals  of  the  English  customs  houses.  On  one 
trip  he  had  taken  300  hogsheads  of  tobacco  and  brought  back  a 
false  cocket   for  3,000  pounds  of   Scotch  cloth  and  ticking,  30 


'  Ibid.,  p.  37. 
'Ibid.,  pp.  203-4. 
'Ibid.,  p.  47. 
C.  O.,  5:1290,  p.  95. 


270  Smith  ColIve;ge  Studies  in  History 

dozen  of  Scotch  hose  and  30  tons  of  sea  cloth.  In  reporting  this 
instance,  Meech  sent  in  a  list  of  fifteen  men  engaged  in  this  trade 
— besides  noting  that  there  were  others  whose  names  he  could  not 
remember.  These  traders  had  counterfeit  seals  of  the  customs 
houses  of  London,  Bristol,  Liverpool,  Whitehaven,  Newcastle, 
Berwick,  Plymouth  and  Bytheford.^-^ 

Evidence  of  illegal  trade  between  1710-1750  is  very  vague.  The 
loose  connection  between  the  colony  and  the  mother  country  made 
it  difficult  to  ascertain  accurate  information.  The  only  sources 
were  the  governor's  reports  and  the  cases  tried  in  the  vice-ad- 
miralty. The  former  were  usually  very  unreliable,  as  the  gov- 
ernors were  always  eager  to  report  that  their  provinces  were  in 
good  order,i24  and  when  acting  as  judges  of  the  vice-admiralty, 
they  were  especially  anxious  to  make  it  appear  that  they  were  do- 
ing their  duty.  A  case  in  1724  illustrates  this  last  point.  Gov- 
ernor Keith  wrote  to  the  board  of  trade  on  the  25th  of  November, 
that  he  had  made  a  seizure  of  the  ship  Fame,  in  spite  of  the  negli- 
gence of  the  collector.  The  surveyor  general's  report,  however, 
made  the  seizure  appear  to  Keith's  discredit.  He  claimed  that  the 
ship  Fame,  owned  by  a  man  named  Pellin,  a  merchant  in  Rotter- 
dam, arrived  in  Philadelphia  bringing  over  immigrants  from  the 
Palatinate.  It  also  brought  East  India  and  European  goods  to 
the  value  of  £20,000,  a  violation  of  15  Charles  II,  chapter  7. 
The  vessel  was  seized  and  the  collector  left  six  waiters  on  board 
to  watch  her.  The  following  night,  sixty  or  seventy  persons  in 
disguise  forcibly  boarded  her  and  took  the  vessel  below  the 
town,  landing  a  greater  part  of  the  prohibited  goods.  A  few  days 
later,  Keith  went  on  board  the  ship,  making  a  pretence  of  a  new    j 


'''C.  O.,  5:1287,  Journal  of  Captain  Meech. 
C.  O.,  5:1266,  R.  7. 


Col.  W.  Hart  said  that  there  were  three  collectors  in  Pennsylvania  to 
prevent  illegal  trade  and  he  believed  measures  were  effectual.  Also  that 
Pennsylvania  had  no  trade  with  foreign  Plantations  except  to  Madeira, 
Cadiz,  Alicante  and  Lisbon.  Later,  he  said  that  on  account  of  the  vigilance 
of  the  officers  very  few  seizures  were  made. 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  271 

seizure,  and  the  vessel  was  sold  for  about  £600.i25  The  collector 
protested  that  he  and  the  king  did  not  get  their  share  of  the  seiz- 
ure. Finally,  after  appealing  to  the  king  and  the  lords  justices, 
the  collector  was  allowed  to  prosecute  in  the  proper  court  in 
Pennsylvania,  where  he  obtained  a  condemnation.^-'^  Another 
instance  in  which  15  Charles  II,  chapter  7,  was  violated  occurred 
in  1726,  when  Joseph  Brown  was  judge  of  the  vice-admiralty. 
The  inventory  of  this  cargo  shows  plainly  what  goods  were  con- 
sidered useful  in  contraband  trade.^-" 

40  pieces  of  calico  in  four  bales £60  Os.  Od. 

10  casks  of  pepper   1200  lbs 80  0  0 

2  pieces  of  muslin  5  0  0 

10  pieces  of  silk  272  yards 40  16  0 

6  pieces  of  Holland   21  0  0 

21  pieces  of  Holland   63  0  0 

9  pieces  of  Holland   31  10  0 

48  pair  of  silk  hose   17  0  0 

34  pieces  of  coarse  linen  32  0  0 

12  pieces  of  ticking   54  0  0 

9  pieces  of  osnaburgs  24  06  09 

51  pieces  of  Kenting   30  12  0 

8  pieces  of  striped  linen  27  0  0 

28  bags,  buttons,  and  bundle  of  mohair....     4  0  0 

12  papers  of  thread  10  0 

brandy    6  15  0 

cordage    6  15  0 

Another  feature  of  the  smuggling  was  the  undervaluation  of 
goods,  when  the  register  and  cocket  appeared  to  be  correct. ^-^ 
Governor  Keith  said,  in  1719,  that  one-third  of  the  rum  imported 
was  not  registered. ^-^  Instance  after  instance  came  up  to  show 
that  this  was  true.     One  interesting  case  was  that  of  Thomas 


^'C.  O.,  5:1266,  R.  52. 

The  goods  taken  in  the  seizure  were :  2  cwt.  of  East  India  Tea,  1500 
gallons  of  brandy,  200  gallons  of  French  spirits,  1200  gallons  of  Burgundy 
claret  and  champagne,  70  bis.  of  gun  powder,  30  tons  of  cordage,  40  tons 
of  iron,  2000  weight  of  cheese,  200  bolts  of  Dutch  sail  cloth. 

""C.  O.,  5:1267,  R.  93. 

"^Ibid.,  R.  112. 

'^  C.  O.,  5  :1267,  R.  93. 

There  were  a  great  many  cases  in  which  the  chief  charge  was  the  lack 
of  a  register.  One  came  up  in  1728.  In  this  instance  it  was  very  evident 
that  the  vessel  was  of  English  build  and  it  was  released. 

""C.  O.,  5:1265,  Q.  176. 


272  Smith  ColIvDge  Studies  in  History 

Hazelwood,  in  1750.  He  was  the  master  of  the  ship  Sandzvich 
which  left  Rotterdam  with  three  hundred  Palatines  bound  for 
Philadelphia.  The  vessel  touched  at  Cowes  and  a  cocket  was 
produced.  When  it  reached  Philadelphia  it  produced  another 
cocket.  It  was  found  that  there  was  a  wide  discrepancy  between 
the  two  documents  and  that  the  goods  were  not  only  greatly  un- 
dervalued, but,  under  cover  of  bringing  in  the  personal  belong- 
ings of  the  immigrants,  quantities  of  East  India  goods  were  smug- 
gled. Peter  Randolph  entered  suit  and  was  upheld  by  the  court. ^^^ 

The  most  serious  charges,  however,  brought  against  the  Del- 
aware district  was  that  of  carrying  on  illicit  trade  with  the 
enemy  in  time  of  war.  During  the  War  of  the  Spanish  Succes- 
sion, a  flourishing  trade  existed  with  the  Dutch  and  Spanish  West 
Indies  via  the  French  West  Indies,  which  nominally  obtained 
their  provisions  from  France.^^^  The  northern  colonies  exported 
to  Curagoa  from  1200  to  1500  tons  of  bread  and  flour  annually, 
and  imported  in  return  quantities  of  rigging  sail,  canvas,  goods 
for  weaving,  cocoa,  linen,  muslins  and  silks. ^^^ 

Monte  Christi^^s  and  St.  Eustatiusi^-i  were  notorious  smug- 
gling centers,  where  trade  with  foreign  colonies  was  carried  on 
with  as  much  ease  as  if  it  were  not  prohibited  by  law.  The  mar- 
ket in  the  northern  colonies  was  so  glutted  with  French  sugars, 
that  the  honest  trader  could  not  import  sugars  from  the  British 
West  Indies,  except  at  a  great  disadvantage  and  loss.^^^     The 


""  Pa.  Hist.  Soc.  Mss.    Custom  House,  Vol.  I. 

"^C.  O.,  5:1288,  p.  271. 

"'C.  O.,  5:1292,  pp.  206-7. 

'""C.  O.,  5:1275,  W.  3.  Letter  from  Townsend  White  to  London  Cor- 
respondent, October  23,  1755. 

Beer,  G.  L.,  British  Colonial  Policy,  1754-1765,  p.  96-108.  A  full  treat- 
ment of  the  trade  of  Monte  Christi  is  given  here — its  situation — its 
commercial  insignificance  before  it  was  made  a  free  port,  reasons  for 
making  it  a  free  port,  and  the  illegal  trade  with  the  continental  colonies. 

'"*  Chatham  Papers,  Bun.  96. 

'^  Addit.  Mss.  33030  f401. 

T.  L  476.  Oct.  1756. 


Trade;  of  the;  De;laware;  District  273 

surplus  of  this  illegal  importation  was  re-exported  to  England 
and  southern  Europe,  passing  as  British  sugars. ^3g 

While  the  trade  with  the  foreign  colonies  was  known  before 
the  Seven  Years'  War,  its  real  significance  had  not  been  appre- 
ciated. This  was  largely  due  to  the  ignorance  of  the  authorities 
in  England  concerning  the  trade  between  the  continental  colonies 
and  the  West  Indies.  When  this  war,  which  was  to  decide  the 
struggles  between  England  and  France,  was  begun  and  every 
effort  was  made  to  injure  the  trade  of  the  enemy,  all  of  these 
illegalities  were  brought  clearly  to  light.  The  recent  excellent 
treatments  of  the  trade  regulations  during  the  war,  the  colonial 
trade  with  the  enemy,  and  the  means  adopted  to  check  it,  make  it 
unnecessary  to  consider  these  subjects  here.^^?  i^  jg  sufficient  to 
state  that  this  illicit  trade  was  on  such  an  enormous  scale  that  the 
British  ministry,  in  1763,  felt  justified  in  making  more  string- 
ent regulations  concerning  it. 


"'Beer,  British  Colonial  Policy,  1754-1765,  p.  100,  quoting  letter  from 
George  Spenser  to  Amherst,  America  and  West  Indies,  95  (C.  O.  5:60), 
and  letter  from  Colden  to  Pitt,  America  and  West  Indies,  72  (C.  O. 
5:19). 

T.  I.  349.  A  long  petition  was  presented  May  7,  1763,  from  George 
Spenser  in  which  there  was  a  statement  of  the  illicit  trade  with  Monte 
Christi  and  fictitious  clearances. 

"'Beer,  G.  L.,  British  Colonial  Policy,  1754-1765.    Chapters  V,  VI,  VII. 

Root,  W.  T.,  The  Relations  of  Pennsylvania  with  the  British  Govern- 
ment, 1696-1765,  passim. 


CHAPTER  II 

* 

British  Legislation,  1763-1773 

The  British, ministers  of  the  period  immediately  preceding  the 
American  War  of  Independence  accepted  the  conventional  view 
of  colonial  empire.  According  to  this  view,  the  chief  aim  was  to 
make  the  empire  self-sufficing,  and  as  a  means  to  this  end  it  was 
thought  that  the  mother  country  should  furnish  necessary  pro- 
tection to  the  colonies,  who,  in  return,  should  render  her  obedi- 
ence. This  conception  of  empire  was  severely  tested  at  the  close 
of  the  Anglo-French  struggles  of  the  18th  century,  when  the 
British  Government  was  confronted  with  new  problems  of  reve- 
nue and  protection.  As  a  preventive  measure  against  future  en- 
croachments of  the  French  and  Indians,  it  was  considered  neces- 
sary to  provide  an  adequate  defense  on  the  frontier  and  in  the 
newly  acquired  territories.  It  seemed  only  fair  that  the  expendi- 
ture necessary  for  this  purpose  should  be  met  in  part  by  the  col- 
onists, inasmuch  as  they  had  received,  and  would  continue  to 
receive,  the  greatest  benefits.  The  experience  of  the  Seven  Years' 
War  had  proved  beyond  the  shadow  of  a  doubt  that  the  colonies 
would  not  voluntarily  assume  their  share  of  the  burden.  They 
had  failed  to  furnish  their  full  quotas^  even  under  the  stress  of 
war,  and  it  was  not  very  likely  that  they  would  be  more  amenable 
in  time  of  peace.  This  being  the  case,  the  only  alternative  was 
compulsion.  In  order  to  meet  the  necessary  expense  of  this  new 
system,  efforts  were  made  to  obtain  a  larger  revenue  from  the 
colonies  through  a  series  of  laws  relating  to  trade.  Since  the 
colonies  were  considered  as  parts  of  the  empire  rather  than  en- 
tities, the  increase  of  the  revenue  from  them  was  inseparably  con- 
nected with  imperial  fiscal  difficulties.  For  example,  the  sugar 
act  was  as  much  a  part  of  the  policy  adopted  towards  France  as 
that  towards  the  colonies,  and  the  tea  act  involved  the  relations 


^H.  of  L.  Mss.,  Pennsylvania's  debt  during  the  war  was  £234,782,  \\s., 
3d.  sterling.  Of  this,  £91,391,  I6s.  sterling  remained  undischarged,  to  be 
raised  by  taxes  in  1767,  1768,  1769,  1770,  and  1771. 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  275 

of  the  East  India  Company  more  than  those  of  the  colonies.  The 
parhamentary  acts  of  1763-1773,  considered  from  this  point  of 
view,  were  not  oppressive,  but  were  merely  stern  imperial  meas- 
ures taken  at  a  time  when  protection  and  strict  economy  were 
essential. 

The  colonists,  however,  being  almost  wholly  concerned  with 
their  own  local  troubles,  could  not  appreciate  this  necessity. 
Anything  which  interfered  with  their  interests  or  any  law  which 
seemed  to  benefit  another  colony  to  their  detriment  was  received 
with  deep  resentment.  In  addition  to  holding  this  narrow  pro- 
vincial view  of  trade,  they  were  also  influenced  by  their  ideas  of 
representative  government,  which  led  them  to  consider  the  power 
of  legislation  at  an  angle  different  from  that  adopted  by  the  Brit- 
ish ministry.  From  their  point  of  view,  all  of  these  acts  were  op- 
pressive to  trade  as  well  as  a  violation  of  political  principles. 

Since  the  program  of  the  ministry  in  1763  was  designed  for 
the  purpose  of  raising  revenue,  the  discussion  of  the  various  acts 
will  be  limited  as  far  as  possible  to  the  economic  reasons  for  their 
adoption  and  the  resistance  to  them. 

An  analysis  of  the  colonial  trade  legislation  during  this  period 
reveals  two  methods  by  which  the  revenue  was  to  be  raised : 

(1)  New  trade  regulations. 

(a)  Reorganization  of  the  vice-admiralty. 

(b)  Establishment  of  a  customs  board  in  America. 

(c)  Prohibitory  measures  against  foreign  trade. 

(2)  New  revenue  acts. 

(1)  Neiv  Trade  Regulations 

The  first  of  these  methods  was  obviously  designed  to  check 
smuggling.  During  the  late  war  there  had  been  an  excessive 
amount  of  illegal  trade  with  the  French  West  Indies  to  the  great 
detriment  of  British  interests.  According  to  a  treasury  report  of 
October  4,  1763,  the  revenue  from  the  colonial  customs  "is  very 
small  and  inconsiderable  having  in  no  degree  increased  with  the 
commerce  of  those  countries,  and  is  not  yet  sufficient  to  defray  a 


276  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

fourth  part  of  the  expense  necessary  for  collecting  it."^  The 
treasury  board  realized  that  this  condition  was  due  to  the  neglect 
and  connivance  which  the  existing  system  permitted.  It  seemed 
an  opportune  time  for  a  thorough-going  reform,  especially  as  it 
was  necessary  to  make  some  provision  for  the  newly  acquired 
territories. 

(a)  The  Reorganisation  of  the  Vice- Admiralty 

The  reform  began  in  the  vice-admiralty.^  This  institution  had 
apparently  been  established  in  America  before  1696,  as  a  com- 
mission was  given  to  Fletcher  in  1692,  to  act  as  judge  of  a  district 
which  included  East  and  West  Jersey,  Pennsylvania  and  New 
Castle.^  Little  seems  to  be  known  concerning  the  institution  at 
that  date  and  even  in  7  and  8  William  III,  c.  10,  its  powers  were 
but  vaguely  outlined.  According  to  this  act  it  was  supposed 
to  try  cases  which  involved  breaches  of  the  laws  of  trade  and 
navigation.  The  proprietors  of  Pennsylvania,  Carolina,  the 
Bahamas,  the  Jerseys  and  the  general  court  of  Connecticut 
'denied  the  necessity  of  such  courts  and  claimed  that  their  char- 
ters granted  them  admiralty  jurisdiction.  They  also  petitioned 
that  their  governors  might  have  the  same  admiralty  powers  as  the 
crown  governors.  It  was  decided,  however,  by  the  attorney-gen- 
eral that  there  was  nothing  in  the  charters  of  these  colonies  which 
prevented  the  establishment  of  vice-admiralty  courts.^ 

A  vice-admiralty  court  was  established  at  Philadelphia  which 
had  jurisdiction  over  Pennsylvania,  Delaware  and  West  Jersey, 
and  Robert  Quary  was  appointed  judge  of  the  district.^  This 
court  met  with  opposition   from  the  beginning.     The  chief  ob- 


^H.  of  L.  Mss.    Adm.  Papers,  No.  1. 

Treasury  Board  Papers,  I,  35L 

Adm.  Papers,  Out  Letters,  Bundle  1057. 

^  H.  of  L.  Mss.  Adm.  Papers,  Nos.  1-17,  The  reform  in  the  vice-ad- 
miralty was  extended  over  three  years,  1763-1766. 

Admiralty  Papers,  Out  Letters,  Bundle  1057. 

'  Beer,  G.  L.,  The  Old  Colonial  Policy,  Part  I,  Vol.  I,  p.  292  n.  1. 

C.  O.,  5  :1287,  p.  31. 

Andrews,  C.  M.,  Guide  to  the  materials  for  American  history  to  1783 
in  the  Public  Record  Office,  Vol.  II,  p.  35. 

=  C.  O.,  5:1287,  p.  14. 

'Ibid.,  pp.  292-6. 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  277 

jections  were  trial  without  jury  and  the  encroachment  of  the  mari- 
time courts  upon  the  domain  of  the  civil  courts.  David  Lloyd 
voiced  the  sentiment  of  many  when  he  declared  "that  all  those 
that  did  in  any  way  encourage  or  promote  the  setting  up  of  the 
courts  of  admiralty  in  this  province  were  greater  enemies  to  the 
right  and  liberties  of  the  people  than  those  that  promoted  the 
ship-money  in  King  Charles  the  First's  time.""^  The  opposition 
was  so  great  that  two  laws  were  passed  in  the  Pennsylvania  as- 
sembly against  the  courts.  One,  in  1698,  provided  that  all 
breaches  of  the  trade  laws  should  be  tried  under  the  common 
law  and  by  a  local  jury.  The  other  provided  that  no  freeman 
should  be  tried  or  condemned  in  any  case  whatsoever,  except  by 
the  lawful  judgment  of  his  equals  or  by  the  laws  of  the  province. 
Both  were  disallowed  because  they  were  contrary  to  the  statute 
of  1696.S 

Although  the  terms  of  7  and  8  William  III  c.  10,  were  ambig- 
uous, the  vice-admiralty  court  acted  according  to  these  terms 
until  1764.  During  this  time  various  interpretations  were  made 
of  the  duties  and  jurisdiction  of  the  court  at  Philadelphia.  When- 
ever the  principal  offices  were  held  by  men  from  outside  of  the 
province,  there  was  considerable  friction  with  the  colonial  gov- 
ernment ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  there  seemed  to  be  little  diffi- 
culty when  colonists  were  appointed  or  when  the  governor  acted 
as  judge.  The  most  trouble  occurred  during  the  administrations 
of  Robert  Quary,  1696-1713,  and  Josiah  Brown,  1724-1728. 
Quary,  being  the  first  judge  appointed,  had  to  face  the  natural 
opposition  aroused  by  the  introduction  of  an  institution  which 
seemed  to  curtail  the  power  of  the  regular  colonial  officials.  Brown 
was  the  only  other  person  from  outside  of  the  province  to  hold 
office  for  any  length  of  time.  The  period  between  these  two  ad- 
ministrations and  the  period  from  1728  to  1763  were  compara- 
tively peaceful.     This  was  no  doubt  due  to  the  presence  of  col- 


'  Ibid. 

^  Charter  and  Laws  of  Pennsylvania,  pp.  268-274. 

Pennsylvania  Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  H,  pp.  18,  45. 


278  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

onial  judges,  who  were  lenient  in  their  administration  of  the  court 
and  allowed  the  civil  officials  to  encroach  upon  their  jurisdiction.^ 

The  problems  which  arose  after  1696  centered  about  the 
method  of  condemning  seizures,  the  relative  jurisdiction  of  the 
civil  and  admiralty  courts,  absenteeism  and  the  fee  system.  In 
the  condemnation  of  seizures,  as  well  as  in  other  questions,  the 
lack  of  an  authority  superior  to  the  district  courts  was  most  detri- 
mental. The  colonial  courts  were  too  remote  to  be  supervised 
adequately  by  the  English  admiralty,  and  yet  it  was  obvious  at 
times  that  the  purpose  of  the  vice-admiralty  was  defeated  through 
the  absence  of  such  control.  In  order  to  establish  the  authority 
of  the  courts  the  whole  system  was  reorganized.  A  new  court 
for  all  America  was  erected,  which  had  concurrent  powers  with 
the  district  court  and  could  exercise  all  the  powers  of  the  English 
admiralty  except  that  of  appeal. ^^ 

The  statutes  concerning  the  condemnation  of  seizures  from 
12  Charles  II  to  3  George  III  varied  so  much  in  mode  and  place 
of  trial  that  the  officers  were  uncertain  how  to  proceed.  In  1764, 
it  was  decided  that  offences  committed  against  any  law  of  trade 
could  be  prosecuted,  sued  for,  and  recovered  in  any  court  of 
record  or  in  any  court  of  the  admiralty  or  vice-admiralty,  accord- 
ing to  the  wishes  of  the  informer.  If  either  party  was  not  satis- 
fied with  the  decision,  he  could  appeal  to  the  vice-admiralty  court 
which  had  jurisdiction  in  the  district  where  the  offence  was  com- 
mitted, and,  if  that  had  been  the  court  in  which  the  case  originated 
or  a  further  appeal  was  necessary,  it  was  taken  to  the  admiralty 
court  in  England.^ ^ 

The  limitations  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  vice-admiralty  had 
also  been  vaguely  defined  in  the  act  of  1696.     There  had  been  a 


"  For  a  fuller  discussion  see  Root,  The  Relations  of  Pennsylvania  with 
the  British  Government,  Chap.  IV. 

"  H.  of  L.  Mss.  Adm.  Papers,  No.  15. 

Admiralty  Papers,  Out  Letters  1057. 

The  question  of  appeals  had  been  disputed  since  1696.  See  Root,  The 
Relations  of  Pennsylvania  with  the  British  Government,  Chap.  IV. 

C.  O.,  5.1288,  pp.  109-113,  413. 

"  Ibid. 


Trade  of  the  DeIvAware  District  279 

dispute  between  Quary  and  Penn  concerning  this  matter.^2  Penn 
claimed  that  the  vice-admiralty  had  no  power  on  land  and  that  it 
was  necessary  for  it  to  go  outside  of  the  province  to  exert  its 
control.  On  the  occasion  when  a  water  bailiff  was  appointed,  in 
the  absence  of  Quary,  the  latter  complained  that  the  rights  of 
the  admiralty  had  been  seriously  invaded.  This  was  not  the  case. 
The  appointment  was  only  an  emergency  measure.  Penn  defined 
his  attitude  clearly  in  his  dispatch  of  December  10,  1700.^^  He 
said  that  the  difficulty  lay  in  the  fact  that  the  vice-admiralty  and 
civil  courts  overlapped  in  their  jurisdiction  and  disputes  occurred 
on  the  border  land.  He  pointed  out  further  that  there  was  no 
skilled  lawyer  in  Pennsylvania  who  could  settle  disputes  of  this 
character.  It  seemed  to  him  hardly  possible  that  courts,  estab- 
lished for  the  express  purpose  of  trying  offences  against  the  acts 
of  trade  and  navigation  and  for  piracy,  could  be  supposed  to 
consider  cases  which  arose  within  the  limits  of  the  province,  how- 
ever much  they  concerned  the  sale  of  goods  from  vessels  or  work 
done  on  vessels. 

In  1702,  Penn  made  further  charges  against  Quary  in  this 
matter,  claiming  that  he  was  ignorant  of  the  law  and  that  he  at- 
tempted to  extend  his  admiralty  jurisdiction  to  cases  which  were 
clearly  within  that  of  the  common  law  courts.^'*  On  account  of 
the  disputes  which  arose,  the  opinion  of  Sir  Edward  Northey, 
attorney-general,  and  Sir  John  Cooke,  solicitor-general,  wajs 
asked.  They  characterized  the  act  7  and  8  William  III  as  "con- 
fused and  dark"  and  in  general  upheld  Penn's  contention. ^^  From 
that  time  it  was  fairly  clear  that  the  jurisdiction  of  the  vice-ad- 
miralty did  not  extend  to  cases  on  land.  The  question  came  up, 
however,  again  and  again.  For  this  reason  the  act  4  George  III  c. 
15  stated  clearly  the  limitations  of  the  court. ^'^  When  the  Earl  of 
Northumberland  was  made  vice-admiral  of  all  America,  his  power 
extended  "throughout  all  and  every  the  sea  shoals,  public  streams, 


''C.  O.,  5:1288,  p.  413. 

"C.  O.,  5:1289,  pp.  278-90.  « 

"C.  O.,  5:1290,  pp.  65-70. 

"^Ibid.,  pp.  109-113. 

''4  Geo.  Ill,  c.  15,  sec.  XU. 


280  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

ports,  fresh  water  rivers,  creeks,  and  arms  as  well  of  the  sea  as 
other  rivers,  and  the  coast  whatsoever  of  all  America  and  ter- 
ritories dependent  thereon  and  maritime  parts  whatsoever  of  the 
same  and  thereto  adjacent  as  well  within  the  libertys,  and  fran- 
chises, as  without,  to  take  cognizance,  and  proceed  in  all  causes 
civil  and  maritime  and  in  complaints,  contracts,  offences,  or  pros- 
pective offences,  arms,  pleas,  debts,  exchanges,  accounts,  charters, 
party  agreements,  suits,  trespasses,  injurys,  extortions  and  de- 
mands, civil  and  maritime,  whatsoever  commenced  between  mer-. 
chants  and  proprietors  of  ships,  etc."^'^  In  short,  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  vice-admiralty  was  extended  to  every  case,  civil  as  well  as 
maritime,  which  had  the  remotest  connection  with  trade. 

One  of  the  chief  defects  of  the  system  was  absenteeism.^^ 
The  admiralty  officials  were  not  explicitly  required  by  law  always 
to  be  present  in  their  district,  and  many  of  them  were  very  negli- 
gent. On  several  occasions  this  had  been  considered  a  serious 
hindrance.  Robert  Quary  wrote  from  Philadelphia  on  July  4, 
1698,  that  the  admiralty  court  was  in  bad  shape.  "The  register 
appointed  by  Randolph  lives  a  hundred  miles  from  Philadelphia, 
and  the  marshall  also  appointed  by  Randolph  is  not  at  present  in 
the  colony.  Besides,  the  chief  officer,  the  advocate,  is  in  England, 
and  does  not  intend  to  come  to  Pennsylvania."  On  this  account 
he  was  unable  to  proceed  to  business. ^^  At  another  time  certain 
difficulties  could  have  been  averted  had  Quary  himself  been  pres- 
ent. While  he  was  absent,  because  of  ill  health  and  private  busi- 
ness, some  oft'ences  were  committed  in  the  river  at  Philadelphia 
and  the  water  bailiff  was  instructed  to  prosecute  the  case.-°  In 
order  that  such  occasions  could  not  arise,  the  act  of  1764  required 
all  of  the  officers  to  remain  constantly  at  their  posts  of  duty.-^ 


"H.  of  L.  Mss.  Adm.  Papers,  No.  11. 

"  H.  of  L.  Mss.  A  report  concerning  the  officers  of  the  civil,  military 
and  admiralty  establishments,  delivered  in  the  house  of  lords  on  the  20th 
of  January,  1766,  shows  the  amount  of  absenteeism  in  the  colonies. 

Adm.  Papers,  Out  Letters,  Bundle  1057. 

"C.  O.,  5:1287,  pp.  228-233. 

""  Root,  Relations  of  Pennsylvania  with  the  British  Government,  1696- 
1765,  p.  107. 

-'H.  of  L.  Mss.    Adm.  Papers,  No.  1. 

Admiralty  Papers,  Out  Letters,  1057. 


Trade  of  the;  Delaware  District  281 

The  fee  system  was  largely  responsible  for  this  difficulty.  The 
English  government  had  always  felt  that  it  was  out  of  the  ques- 
tion to  provide  salaries  for  all  of  the  officers  of  the  vice-admiralty 
and  in  most  instances  the  provincial  government  was  unwilling  to 
assist  in  any  way.22  The  fees  were  never  large  enough  to 
defray  an  officer's  expenses,  and,  in  times  of  great  opposition, 
fear  of  imprisonment  somtimes  kept  them  from  accepting  any  at 
all.-=^  Quary  wrote  to  the  admiralty  of  England  that  he  had 
"served  his  majesty  for  three  years  at  his  own  cost  and  charge, 
and  it  had  cost  him  a  good  deal  of  time,  money,  labour  and  haz- 
ard."-* In  order  to  make  up  the  deficit,  the  officers  were  com- 
pelled to  engage  in  private  activities  which  took  them  away  from 
their  districts.-'^ 

To  obviate  these  difficulties  special  provision  was  made,  in 
1764,  for  salaries.26  The  vice-admiral  of  all  America  and  the 
judge  of  the  court  were  each  to  be  paid  £800  a  year.  The 
judges  of  the  new  district  courts  were  also  to  have  the  same  sal- 
aries as  had  previously  been  paid  to  the  judge  of  the  court  at 
Halifax,  which  had  been  considered  the  most  important  court 
before  the  establishment  of  the  one  for  all  America.  Thus  the 
principal  officers  were  supposed  to  be  sufficiently  compensated  for 
their  work  and  did  not  need  to  seek  other  means  of  earning  a 
livelihood. 


■'  C.  O.,  5  :1288,  p.  413. 

When  Roger  Mempessen  was  appointed  to  succeed  Quary,  the  latter 
informed  the  board  of  trade  that  Mr.  Penn  had  recommended  to  his 
friends  here  in  Pennsylvania  that  they  "do  amongst  them  settle  £200  a 
year  on  the  new  judge." 

^^  Root,  W.  T.,  The  Relations  of  Pennsylvania  with  the  British  Govern- 
ment, 1696-1765,  passim. 

=*C.  O.,  5:1288,  p.  413. 

=^6  Anne,  c.  Z7,  sec.  VII. 

13  George  III,  c.  3. 

29  George  II,  c.  34. 

The  fees  were  definitely  established  by  act  of  parliament  in  cases 
of  prizes  taken  during  a  war,  but  fees  in  case  of  vessels  condemned  in 
seizures  varied  in  amount.  They  were  usually  10  per  cent  of  the  value 
of  the  seizure.  Keith  said,  in  1727,  that  he  received  7  1-2  per  cent  of 
all  condemnations. 

^"'H.  of  L.  Mss.  Adm.  Papers,  No.  15. 


282  Smith  College;  Studies  in  History 

The  treasury  board  felt  that  the  vice-admiralty  in  America 
should  be  strongly  supported  by  the  officials  in  other  departments, 
civil  and  military.  Therefore  they  petitioned  that  all  the  gov- 
ernors should  be  given  strict  instructions  to  suppress  illegal  trade, 
to  exert  their  authority  in  protecting  the  officers  of  the  revenue, 
and  to  transmit  such  observations  as  might  occur  to  them  on  the 
state  of  trade.  The  military  force  was  likewise  requested  to  lend 
its  aid  in  any  emergency.  The  commanders-in-chief  of  his  ma- 
jesty's ships  and  troops  in  America  and  the  West  Indies  were  ask- 
to  give  all  possible  assistance,  to  make  such  use  of  the  forces 
under  their  respective  commands  as  would  be  most  serviceable  in 
suppressing  dangerous  practices,  and  to  protect  the  officers  from 
the  violence  of  any  desperate  and  lawless  persons  who  should 
attempt  to  resist  the  due  execution  of  the  laws.  Furthermore 
it  was  suggested  that  a  sea  guard  should  be  instituted  to  co- 
operate with  the  officers  of  the  vice-admiralty,  the  military  and 
the  civil  government.  The  improvement  of  the  sea  guard  at  home 
had  been  of  great  service  in  suppressing  contraband  trade,  and 
it  was  thought  that  it  would  insure  the  obedience  to  law  if  one 
were  placed  in  America.-" 

(b)  Bstahlishment  of  Customs  Board  in  America 

A  change  in  the  colonial  customs  house  system  came  soon 
after  the  reorganization  of  the  vice-admiralty.  The  treasury 
board  had  suggested,  in  its  report  of  October  4th,  1763,  that  the 
revenue  might  be  increased  by  the  following  remedies : 

(1)  All  officers  belonging  to  the  customs  in  America  and  the 
West  Indies  should  be  fully  instructed  in  their  duty  and  should 
be  compelled  to  remain  constantly  in  their  respective  stations. 

(2)  Regular  and  constant  correspondence  should  be  required, 
which  would  keep  the  treasury  informed  about  their  proceedings. 
This  correspondence  should  include  an  account  of  any  difficulties 
they  might  meet  in  discharging  their  respective  duties ;  also  care- 
fully drawn  up  accounts  of  imports  and  exports  of  their  district. 


-'  H.  of  L.  Mss.,  Adm.  Papers,  No.  1. 
Admiralty  Papers,  Out  Letters,  1057. 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  283 

amount  of  illicit  trade,  observations  on  the  efficacy  or  inefficacy 
of  any  existing  regulations,  and  suggestions  of  such  alterations  as 
would  lead  to  the  further  improvement  of  the  revenue.-^ 

These  remedies  were  adopted,  and  as  a  result  detailed  instruc- 
tions were  sent  to  all  governors,  surveyors-general,  and  custom 
I  house  officers.-^  The  number  of  circular  letters  inquiring  about 
the  state  of  trade  and  manufacture  in  each  province  increased 
rapidly,  but  the  replies  were  not  at  all  satisfactory.  Some  of  the 
reports  were  unsystematic  and  unnecessarily  long,  while  others 
were  too  meagre  to  be  of  any  use.  For  this  reason  it  was  impos- 
sible to  ascertain  the  amount  of  revenue  from  the  colonies.  A 
report  made  to  the  commissioners  of  the  customs  at  London  on 
the  3rd  of  April,  1767,  concerning  the  duties  in  America,  pointed 
out  that  "distance  rendered  correspondence  with  officers  of  the 
revenue  very  tedious  and  liable  to  uncertainty  and  interruption. 
Instructions  and  orders  of  the  board  could  have  but  little  effect — 
negligent,  partial  and  corrupt  officers,  made  various  pretences 
either  to  defeat  or  elude  the  directions  sent  them,  while  the  dili- 
gent and  faithful  officers,  who  were  willing  to  do  their  duty,  found 
great  discouragement  for  want  of  ready  assistance  and  informa- 
tion. 

"The  truth  of  this  general  observation  has  been  long  known 
and  felt,  but  the  oppression  which  officers  of  the  revenue  labour 
under  in  America  (more  especially  in  some  parts  of  the  conti- 
nent) has  lately  grown  to  such  an  enormous  height,  that  it  is  be- 
come impossible  for  them  to  do  their  duty,  not  only  from  the  out- 
rages of  the  mob,  but  for  fear  also  of  vexatious  suits,  verdicts  and 
judgments  in  the  provincial  courts.  Assistance  from  the  gov- 
ernors and  the  institution  of  surveyor-general  of  the  customs  in 
America  is  very  inadequate.  It  would  be  imprudent  at  times  to 
act  as  the  guarding  of  the  revenue  demands.    The  variety  of  busi- 


^'H.  of  L.  Mss.,  Adm.  Papers,  No.  1. 

Admiralty  Papers,  Out  Letters,   1057. 

Treasury  Papers,  XI,  27,  p.  318. 

^^  C.  O.,  5:1233.  Instructions  to  the  governor  from  the  secretary  of 
state.  It  was  during  this  time  that  John  Penn  received  the  letters  referred 
to  in  the  first  chapter. 


^Treasury  Board  Papers,  I,  459;  XXVIII,  I. 

''  Ibid.,  XI,  28,  p.  145. 

'"  The  extent  to  which  this  board  was  effective  may  be  found  in  letters 
among  the  Admiralty  Papers  II  3866;  i?i  the  accounts  which  were  sent 
to  the  lords  of  the  treasury  from  the  custom  house,  Boston,  beginning 
September  8,  1767 — Custom  House  Establishment  Books,  Custom  House, 
London ;  and  in  the  letters  sent  by  the  American  board  of  commissioners 
to  the  various  collectors  and  comptrollers  of  the  colonies, — Custom 
House  Miscellanea  16.  Register  of  Letters  Outward  beginning  January 
5,  1768. 


284  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

ness  arising  from  the  acts  of  navigation,  trade  and  revenue  in 
America  depends  almost  wholly  on  the  prudence  and  good  con- 
duct of  the  surveyor-general,  and  the  distance  is  too  remote  for 
him  to  be  of  adequate  use."^^ 

Between  April  and  September,  1767,  a  careful  investigation 
was  made  of  the  custom  houses  and  their  officials  in  America.  It 
was  finally  decided  that  it  would  be  economical  in  the  end  to 
establish  a  general  customs  board  in  America  which  would  super- 
vise all  the  custom-houses  on  the  continent  and  in  the  Bermudas 
and  the  Bahamas.  A  board  of  this  nature  was  formally  inaugu- 
rated by  letters  patent  on  September  8th,  1768.^^ 

The  principal  duty  of  this  board  was  to  give  information  to   ' 
the  commissioners  of  the  customs  in  London  concerning  the  state  I 
of  revenue  in  America.     It  was  to  all  intents  and  purposes  the 
colonial  branch  of  the  London  custom  house  and  the  methods  of 
the  latter  were  adopted. ^^     Consequently  accounts   were  more 
carefully  and  systematically  entered.     Mr.  Irving,  the  inspector-   I 
general  of  imports  and  exports  and  register  of  shipping,  made  out 
a  table  of  accounts  similar  to  the  one  which  he  meant  to  follow  in 
his  office  and  sent  it  to  each  port  with  instructions  that  they  should 
make  quoted  reports  according  to  this  model.     As  a  result,  the 
shipping  returns  of  all  the  colonies,  from  1768  to  1773,  were  en- 
tered under  the  following  general  heads : 

(1)  Imports  and  exports  to  and  from  Great  Britain  and  Ire- 
land. 

(2)  Imports  and  exports  to  and  from  Southern  European 
ports ;  Africa  and  the  Wine  Islands. 

(3)  Imports  and  exports  to  and  from  the  West  Indies. 


I 


Trad^  of  the  Delaware  District  285 

(4)  Imports  and  exports  coast  wise. 

(5)  Account  of  duties  on  exports  and  imports.^^ 

This  was  a  great  improvement  on  the  old  hap-hazard  method 
of  keeping  accounts.  Mr.  Irving  wrote  in  1770  concerning  the 
matter : 

"Previous  to  the  establishment  of  this  board  the  customs  were 
drawn  in  a  very  confused,  imperfect  and  inaccurate  manner.  The 
accounts  of  imports  being  entirely  omitted  by  reason  of  the  multi- 
plicity of  articles  of  which  said  cargoes  generally  consist,  and  the 
imports  and  exports  to  and  from  neighboring  colonies  (which 
commonly  pass  under  the  denomination  of  coasting  trade)  being 
seldom  if  ever  inserted  in  the  accounts,  and  even  such  goods  and 
commodities  as  were  brought  into  the  account  were  not  arranged 
in  any  order  or  method,  nor  were  the  real  quantities  thereof  ascer- 
tained with  proper  precision,  so  it  was  merely  impossible  for  me  to 
keep  an  account  of  import  and  export  either  for  the  information 
of  government  or  to  be  a  check  upon  illicit  trade  agreeable  to 
the  end  and  design  of  my  appointment."^^ 

(c)  Prohibitory  Measures  Against  Foreign  Trade 
One  of  the  chief  reasons  for  a  more  thorough  supervision  of 
trade  was  the  enforcement  of  the  "enumerated"  policy  as  out- 
lined in  the  navigation  act  of  1660,35  the  staple  act  of  1663^'^  and 
the  colonial  act  of  1673. •''"  While  two  of  these  acts  were  originally 
directed  against  the  Dutch,  the  principle  upon  which  they  rested 
was  the  economic  independence  of  the  empire.  The  aim  was  to 
encourage  the  production  of  raw  material  in  the  colonies  and  to 
make  England  the  center  for  manufacturing.  To  offset  the  dis- 
advantage to  the  colonies  of  requiring  them  to  send  their  sugar, 
tobacco,  cotton,  wool,  indigo,  ginger,  logwood,  fustic  and  other 
dyeing  wood,  and  cocoa  nuts  directly  to  England  or  to  some  other 
British  colony,38  an  attempt  was  made,  by  means  of  bounties  and 


^'  Customs  16:1. 

^  Treasury  Board  Papers  I,  476. 

^  12  Charles  II,  c.  18. 

'^MS  Charles  II,  c.  7. 

37 

3S 


25  Charles  II,  c.  7,  sec.  5. 

Beer,    G.    L.,   British   Colonial   Policy,    1754-1765,    Chap.   X.     passim. 


286  Smith  Coli^ege  Studies  in  History 

preferential  tariffs,  to  secure  the  English  market  for  certain  col- 
onial staples.  For  a  district  which  enjoyed  a  direct  trade  with 
the  mother  country,  these  regulations  could  work  little  hardship, 
but  in  those  districts,  such  as  the  Delaware,  which  depended  upon 
circuitous  routes  there  was  little  sympathy  for  such  a  policy. 
Before  1764,  the  only  enumerated  article  which  seriously  affected 
the  trade  of  this  district  was  sugar,  as  tobacco  had  ceased  to  be 
of  importance  early  in  the  century.  In  that  year,^^  however,  the 
enumerated  list  was  enlarged,  the  chief  additions  being  lumber 
and  iron.  The  colonists  complained  of  this  legislation,  and  in 
order  to  minimize  their  distress  parliament  passed  another  act, 
in  1765,  providing  for  the  payment  of  bounties  on  these  products. 

This  relieved  the  situation  to  some  extent,  but  it  was  generally 
regarded  in  the  northern  colonies  as  inadequate  compensation  for 
the  hardship  of  having  the  articles  on  the  enumerated  list.  On 
account  of  its  bulk  and  smallness  of  value,  lumber  could  not,  as  a 
rule,  be  sold  at  a  profit  if  it  had  to  reach  its  final  market  by  way 
of  England.'**^  The  same  was  true  of  iron.  John  Dickinson  said, 
"Indeed,  to  require  us  to  send  all  our  iron  to  Great  Britain  is,  in 
the  opinion  of  some  of  our  most  judicious  merchants,  to  require 
an  impossibility.  For,  as  the  article  is  so  heavy  and  such  small 
quantities  can  be  sent  on  one  vessel,  they  assert  that  we  cannot 
send  freight  directly  home  for  one-half  of  it."'^^ 

The  additions  to  the  enumerated  list  in  the  act  of  1764  were 
not  so  objectionable  as  the  new  restrictions  placed  upon  the  trade 
with  the  West  Indies  and  the  minute  regulations  made  for  inter- 
colonial commerce.  The  traders  of  the  Delaware  district  had  al- 
ways been  vitally  concerned  in  attempts  to  prevent  the  continental 
colonies  from  using  the  foreign  West  Indian  markets,  and  had 
made  protests  whenever  the  matter  was  brought  up.  Mr.  Paris, 
agent  of  Pennsylvania,  presented  a  memorial,  in  1731,  which  gave 
reasons  why  the  monopoly  which  the  assemblies  of  the  Barbadoes, 
Antigua  and  St.  Christophers  demanded,  would  be  injurious  to 


'M  Geo.  Ill,  c.  15. 

'"Beer,   G.   L.,   British   Colonial   Policy,    1754-1765,    Chap.   X.     passim. 


"  Chatham  Papers.     Bundle  97. 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  287 

British  trade  in  general.  He  said  that  "Pennsylvania  may  be 
called  one  of  the  bread  colony s,"  and  he  pointed  out  that  she  im- 
ported more  manufactures  from  Great  Britain  than  the  other 
three  colonies  together.-*-  Furthermore,  he  said  that  she  obtained 
means  for  purchasing  merchandise  through  trade  in  food  stuffs 
with  the  West  Indies — the  foreign  as  well  as  the  British.  Since 
the  latter  could  not  consume  the  surplus  of  the  bread  colonies  nor 
furnish  the  northern  colonies  with  all  the  molasses,  sugar  and 
rum  required,  it  seemed  more  correct  to  promote  the  trade  than 
to  curtail  it. 

In  1733,  the  West  Indies,  from  the  point  of  view  of  trade, 
were  by  far  the  most  important  colonies  of  the  British  Empire. 
Compared  with  them — especially  the  sugar  islands — the  continen- 
tal colonies  were  insignificant.  On  account  of  this,  everything  was 
done  to  promote  their  welfare.  The  molasses  act  was  passed,  as 
the  government  thought  that  legislation  compelling  the  continental 
colonies  to  purchase  their  molasses  and  sugar  from  the  British 
West  Indies  would  necessarily  increase  the  prosperity  of  those 
islands  which  were  already  occupied  and  would  strengthen  the 
British  in  their  struggle  with  the  French  for  the  possession  of 
St.  Lucia,  Dominica  and  St.  Vincent.  Conditions,  however, 
changed  considerably  during  the  next  thirty  years. "^^  The  con- 
tinental colonies  developed  much  more  rapidly  than  the  West  In- 
dies, and  a  very  flourishing  trade  sprang  up  between  the  northern 


^C.  O.,  5:1267,  S.  13. 

B.  T.  Commercial  Series  II,  Vol.  414.  The  statistics  given  in  this 
volume  do  not  bear  out  this  statement.  From  Christmas,  1731  to  Christ- 
mas, 1732  the  exports  from  England  were  as  follows : 

Pennsylvania    £41,698       Montserrat    £2,075 

Antigua    22M(i      Nevis    4,666 

Barbadoes   60,191       St.  Kitts    18,024 

Jamaica    132,780 

C.  O.,  5:1267,  S.  34. 

It  is  hardly  possible  that  the  situation  was  as  Mr.  Paris  presented  it 
because  Governor  Gordon  said  in  1731  that  Pennsylvania  did  not  have  a 
large  trade  with  the  foreign  plantation,  sending  only  three  or  four  vessels 
to  Surinam  and  perhaps  one  to  Curagoa  and  sometimes  one  to  St. 
Eustatius,  but  none  to  the  Spanish  or  French  colonies. 

"  Dickinson,  John,  Late  Regulations.  Memoirs  of  the  Historical  So- 
ciety of  Pennsylvania,  Vol.  XIV,  pp.  221-2. 


288  Smith  Coli^ege  Studies  in  History 

colonies  and  the  foreign  islands  in  violation  of  the  molasses  act. 
The  British  West  Indies  were  no  longer  capable  of  taking  all  of 
the  goods  of  the  northern  colonies  or  of.  furnishing  them  with 
sufficient  West  Indian  produce. 

The  Delaware  traders  were  the  chief  offenders.  The  small 
amount  of  duties  collected  from  this  act  shows  how  inadequately 
it  was  enforced.  Only  £600  6s.  lOd.  were  collected  on  merchan- 
dise and  £141  lis.  9d.  on  prize  goods,  from  1733  to  1750.  Vio- 
lations of  the  act  were  also  brought  to  light  in  the  proceedings 
and  viva  voce  evidence  taken  before  the  commissioners  of  trade 
and  plantations  in  1750.'*'*  In  this  investigation  testimony  was 
given  by  merchants  of  London  trading  with  the  sugar  islands, 
who  thought  that  it  would  be  prejudicial  to  their  interests,  if  the 
illicit  trade  were  allowed  to  continue.  They  called  attention  to 
the  manner  and  the  degree  in  which  the  northern  colonies,  more 
particularly  Rhode  Island  and  Pennsylvania,  had  evaded  the  law. 
In  times  of  war,  "it  was  done  by  flags  of  truce,  sometimes  with 
only  one,  two  or  three  prisoners,  and  sometimes  purchasing  pris- 
oners for  that  purpose,  and,  since  the  war,  in  an  open  and  regular 
course.  It  was  a  known  fact  that  the  northern  colonies  consumed 
great  quantities  of  French  and  foreign  rum,  sugar  and  molasses^ 
and  it  was  well  known  that  they  never  paid  any  duties  for  it. 
Vessels  have  cleared  from  Rhode  Island  to  Jamaica,  have  gone  to 
some  other  British  settlement,  have  sold  their  lumber  for  specie, 
refusing  rum  and  molasses,  and  have  gone  to  some  foreign  settle- 
ment and  bought  a  cargo  of  rum  and  molasses  with  that  specie 
and,  sometimes,  linen,  silks.  East  India  goods  and  other  pro- 
hibited merchandise." 

In  this  investigation  some  of  the  reasons  for  trading  with  the 
French  were  brought  out.  In  the  first  place,  the  lumber  pro- 
duced in  the  French  colonies  on  the  continent  was  not  so  useful 
for  their  puncheons  and  hogsheads  as  that  grown  in  the  northern 
English  colonies,  and  it  was  less  difficult  to  import  it  from  the 
northern   colonies   than    from   Canada   or   Louisiana.      Secondly, 


**  C.  O.,  5  :38.     Proceedings  and  Viva  Voce  Evidence  Taken  Before  the 
Commissioners  of  Trade  and  Plantation  in  1750. 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  289 

provisions  and  specie  were  very  scarce  in  these  plantations  and, 
if  the  merchants  could  not  exchange  their  West  Indian  products 
for  lumber  and  provisions,  they  were  reduced  to  extreme  neces- 
sity. Thirdly,  since  lumber  alone  was  sometimes  sent,  and  a 
cargo  of  it  was  not  always  sufficient  to  purchase  the  required 
amount  of  rum,  molasses  and  sugar  in  the  French  colonies,  specie 
was  demanded  in  the  British  sugar  islands  instead  of  products,  to 
make  up  the  balance. ^^ 

The  British  West  Indian  merchants  suffered  considerably 
from  this  trade  as  it  took  away  most  of  their  specie  and  prevented 
them  from  selling  their  products  in  North  American  markets. 
Consequently,  they  petitioned  for  an  act  which  would  prohibit  the 
trade  more  effectively.  They  suggested  a  more  thorough-going 
supervision  of  ports  and  certification  of  goods. 

The  act  which  resulted  from  these  petitions  was  clearly  in  line 
with  the  reforms  in  the  vice-admiralty.  The  detailed  regulations 
in  respect  to  the  loading  and  unloading  of  goods  presuppose  an 
active  vice-admiralty  court  and  the  co-operation  of  a  water-guard, 
a  military  force  and  the  civil  government.  The  aid  of  these  in- 
stitutions was  necessary  to  enforce  such  provisions  as  :  (1)  that, 
before  any  vessel  could  take  on  its  enumerated  goods  the  owner 
must  take  out  bonds  to  the  value  of  the  goods  and  certify  that 
they  were  going  to  Great  Britain  or  to  some  British  plantations ; 
(2)  that  no  ship  should  be  cleared  from  Great  Britain  or  the 
colonies  unless  the  entire  cargo  was  laden  and  shipped  to  one 
destination;  (3)  that  the  certificate  for  entry  and  discharge  must 
be  under  the  hand  and  seal  of  the  customs  officer,  comptroller, 
collector  of  customs  and  four  of  the  commissioners  in  London  or 
three  in  Edinburgh.  Careful  provision  was  made  for  damage 
suits.  An  officer  could  not  be  sued  for  damage  in  case  of  seized 
goods,  the  owner  could  not  recover  costs,  and  persons  who  claimed 
seized  goods  were  obliged  to  deposit  security  to  cover  the  costs  of 
the  suit.*^ 


*'  Ibid. 

*'4  Geo.  Ill,  c.  15,  sec.  XII,  XXVII,  XXX,  XLIV. 


C.  O.,  5:1233.     Orders  and  Instructions  to  Thomas  and  Richard  Penn, 
April,  1767. 


290  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

The  sugar  act  was  not  merely  a  revenue  measure,  but,  like  the 
molasses  act,  it  was  also  intended  to  direct  trade  into  certain  chan- 
nels. New  duties  were  imposed  upon  foreign  coffee  and  pimento, 
oriental  and  French  goods,  and  wine  from  Spain  and  Portugal. 
Madeira  wine  re-exported  from  Great  Britain  was  allowed  a 
drawback  of  £3  per  ton.  Since  the  duty  upon  the  direct  importa- 
tion was  ilO  per  ton,  it  was  thought  that  this  would  cause  the 
trade  to  go  by  way  of  the  mother  country.  The  molasses  act  was 
made  perpetual,  with  the  duty  on  foreign  molasses  and  syrups 
reduced  to  3d.  a  gallon,  the  duty  on  foreign  sugars  raised  to  il  7s. 
per  cwt.  and  the  importation  of  foreign  rum  or  spirits  absolutely 
prohibited.  The  two  and  one-half  per  cent  duty  on  foreign  goods 
re-exported  from  Great  Britain  w^as  not  paid,  nor  was  any  part 
of  the  old  five  per  cent  subsidy  drawn  back.'*'^ 

These  were  all  significant  changes  which  were  meant  to  benefit 
certain  parts  of  the  empire  by  giving  preference  to  their  in- 
dustries. Beside  this,  every  effort  was  made  to  make  Great  Brit- 
ain the  entrepot  for  the  whole  empire,  with  the  hope  that  the  duties 
paid  into  the  British  exchequer  would  be  increased  thereby  and 
that  smuggling  would  be  decreased  by  a  more  careful  supervision 
of  exports  and  imports. 

This  measure  was  very  unpopular  in  the  northern  colonies. 
In  the  first  place  they  felt  that  it  was  unjust  to  promote  the  in- 
terests of  some  of  the  dominions  at  the  expense  of  others.  John 
Dickinson,  writing  to  William  Pitt  in  December,  1765,  said  con- 
cerning the  matter:  "In  this  light  the  restrictions  laid  on  their 
trade  to  the  foreign  plantations  in  the  West  Indies  are  regard- 
ed and  will  be  regarded.  The  natural  consequences  of  these  re- 
strictions are  to  impoverish  the  continental  colonies,  to  render 
them  dissatisfied,  and  gradually  to  break  off  their  connection  with 
Great  Britain  by  lessening  their  demands   for  manufactures. "^s 

One  argument,  given  in  support  of  this  view  in  a  paper  en- 
dorsed "Mr.  Huske's  Scheme  for  Free  Ports  in  North  America," 


"4  Geo.  Ill,  c.  15. 

"Chatham  Papers,  Vol.  97.     Letter  from  John  Dickinson  to  William 
Pitt,  1765. 


Tradi;  of  the  Dui^aware;  District  291 

has  a  very  modern  ring.  After  pointing  out  that  it  ought  to  make 
Httle  difference  what  foreigners  did,  since  the  West  India  planters 
were  unable  to  supply  the  markets  of  the  continental  colonies,  he 
said,  "setting  aside  its  not  injuring  our  sugar  planters,  do  not 
these  supplies  to  foreigners  and  the  advantages  made  of  the  re- 
turns also  give  support  to  our  northern  plantations  ?  Does  it  not 
make  them  more  useful  and  beneficial  to  the  mother  country  and 
does  not  the  supplying  foreign  colonies  with  what  they  want 
and  taking  from  them  that  they  produce,  so  far  as  this  extends 
make  them  colonies  of  Great  Britain,  and  this  too,  without  the 
expense  of  supporting  and  defending  them? 

"France  and  Spain,  fully  sensible  of  the  immense  advantages 
we  reap  from  trading  with  their  colonies  in  the  West  Indies,  have 
done  and  continue  to  do  all  in  their  power  to  prevent  it,  except 
for  articles  which  their  colonies  occasionally  want.  And  we  have, 
ever  since  the  late  peace,  done  their  business  for  them  more  effec- 
tually than  they  could  have  done  it  for  themselves,  when  from  all 
considerations  and  in  every  point  of  view  we  ought  to  have  done 
the  reverse. "^^ 

Secondly,  the  increased  list  of  enumerated  goods  and  the  pro- 
viso that  even  non-enumerated  goods  should  not  be  sent  to  ports 
north  of  Cape  Finisterre,  unless  they  had  touched  at  Great  Brit- 
ain, were  considered  very  harmful.  One  pamphleteer  said  con- 
cerning sugars,  and  this  would  apply  to  other  articles  as  well,  "if 
we  go  to  Great  Britain  first  and  land  them  there,  it  will  prove  so 
expensive  by  the  delay  and  charges  of  loading  and  unloading  and 
reshipping,  and  also  a  double  freight  insurance,  that  the  trade 
cannot  be  carried  on  to  any  advantage,  especially  in  time  of  war. 
If  we  carry  these  sugars  direct  to  a  foreign  market  by  license  from 
Great  Britain,  the  difficulties  and  embarrassments  are  still  greater, 
as  the  vessel  in  which  any  sugars  are  to  be  shipped  must  first  go  to 
Great  Britain  and  the  master  enter  into  bonds  there,  before  a 
license  can  be  procured,  during  which  time  the  sugars  are  to  re- 
main in  the  king's  stores  here,  and  after  they  are  delivered  in  a 


*"Addit.    Mss.,   33030,    f.   318.      Mr.    Huske's    Scheme    for    Free    Ports 
in  North  America,  1765. 


292  Smith  Colle;ge  Studies  in  History 

foreign  port,  the  vessel  must  return  to  Great  Britain  to  cancel  the 
bonds,  before  she  can  proceed  in  any  other  voyage — though  the 
liberty  granted  to  carry  these  sugars  directly  to  foreign  ports  by 
license,  might  be  intended  as  an  encouragement  to  the  trade,  the 
regulations  and  restrictions  are  such  as  will  effectually  defeat 
this  very  design."^° 

The  multiplicity  of  bonds  and  cockets  and  the  tedious  delays 
which  they  caused  constituted  a  third  objection.  Besides  the 
bonds  required  for  enumerated  goods,  the  master  of  the  vessel 
was  not  allowed  to  take  in  any  more  enumerated  goods  without 
first  giving  another  bond  with  surety.  By  this  act,  bonds  were 
also  required  for  the  coasting  trade.  Before  a  cocket  could  be 
taken  out,  oath  had  to  be  made  stating  when,  by  whom,  and  in 
what  vessel  the  article  was  intended  to  be  exported.  At  times 
information  could  not  be  obtained  at  once  and  the  delay  was  apt 
to  cause  embarrassment.^^ 

An  extract  from  a  letter  written  by  an  American  concerning 
the  British  legislation  from  1765-69,  gives  a  very  good  example 
of  the  general  feeling: 

"Pardon  me,  honorable  sir,  when  I  say  that  it  is  the  opinion  of 
most  of  us  in  North  America,  that  the  British  legislature  for  the 
last  two  years  have  been  entirely  misinformed  of  the  true  state  of 
these  colonies, — and  the  real  advantage  accruing  from  their  com- 
merce with  their  mother  country.  For  (exclusive  of  the  stamp 
act)  the  duties  upon  foreign  sugars,  molasses,  wine,  etc.,  not 
only  lessen  the  number  of  shipping,  but  in  a  great  measure  pre- 
vent the  merchants  from  means  of  making  remittances  home  for 
the  incredible  quantities  of  woollen,  cutlery,  and  other  British 
manufactures.  Besides,  every  dollar  or  pistol  paid  in  duties 
takes  off  so  much  from  the  sums  remitted  for  British  manu- 
factures; because  nine-tenths  of  the  specie  imported  amongst  us 
from  the  Dutch  free  ports,  the  Spanish  Islands  and  Main,  have 
constantly  in  peace  been  sent  home,  and  we  not  having  one-quarter 


^  Pamphlet.      Observations   on   the    Several   Acts   of    Parliament   by   a 
Boston  Merchant. 
='  Ibid. 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  293 

enough  of  our  own  produce  in  this  and  neighboring  provinces  for 
the  necessary  remittances.  Specie  and  foreign  sugars  have  ever 
made  up  the  deficiency.  But  those  not  being  any  longer  to  be 
had,  new  methods  must  be  fallen  upon  to  clothe  us."^^  He  also 
pointed  out  that  there  was  not  enough  specie  in  the  colonies  to 
pay  for  such  duties  as  the  stamp  act  demanded  for  one  year. 

(2)  New  Revenue  Measures 

The  first  act  passed  for  revenue  alone  was  the  one  which 
granted  and  applied  certain  duties  in  the  form  of  stamps  on  pa- 
pers, documents,  pamphlets,  etc.,  for  the  purpose  of  defraying  the 
expenses  of  protecting  the  colonies.  As  in  the  case  of  the  vice- 
admiralty  reforms,  means  were  provided  for  collecting  these 
duties.  Six  thousand  pounds  were  to  be  paid  out  of  the  sinking 
fund  for  meeting  the  necessary  expenses  of  carrying  the  act  into 
execution. ^3  This  sum  was  to  be  used  in  salaries  to  the  various 
officers  who  would  be  in  charge  of  collecting  the  duties.  The  fol- 
lowing were  the  salaries  granted :  £10  additional  per  annum  to 
the  chamber  keeper ;  i40  additional  per  annum  to  the  receiver 
general;  £50  additional  per  annum  to  the  comptroller;  £100  to  a 
new  secretary  to  the  comptroller;  £20  to  a  second  clerk  to  the 
comptroller;  £50  to  the  packer  and  messenger  of  the  American 
stamp  warehouse;  £100  and  eight  per  cent  of  monies  collected  to 
the  distributors  of  stamps  and  20.y.  per  day  for  their  traveling 
charges  when  out  upon  their  inspection.^'* 

This  act  was  the  result  of  a  plan  which  had  been  proposed  a 
long  time  before. ^^  To  the  British  statesmen  of  the  period  it  was 
clearly  within  the  limits  of  parliamentary  jurisdiction,  as  was 
shown  by  the  vote  in  both  houses.    The  commons  passed  it  by  a 


"  Chatham  Papers,  Vol.  97,  Proposal  signed  by  an  American  Farmer. 

°'  H.  of  L.  Mss.     Paper  marked  Treasury  Chambers,  9  July,  1765. 

"H.  of  L.  Mss.     Paper  marked  Stamp  Office,  27  April,  1765. 

Mr.  Bretell,  Secretary  to  the  Commissioner  of  Stamps,  to  Mr.  Jenkin- 
son,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

^^  Addit.  Mss.,  33030,  f.  2)76.  "Reasons  humbly  offered  in  support  of  a 
proposal  lately  made  to  extend  the  duties  in  stamp  paper  and  parchment 
all  over  the  British  Plantations." 

Beer,  G.  L.,  British  Colonial  Policy,  pp.  38-41. 


294  Smith  Coi^lege;  Studies  in  History 

vote  of  250  to  49,  and  it  passed  the  lords  without  a  division.  It 
appeared  to  do  away  with  the  many  difficulties  inseparably  con- 
nected with  port  duties  and  appropriations.  To  the  colonists  it 
represented  all  that  they  had  grown  to  feel  was  tyrannical  and 
unjust.  They  saw  in  it  a  violation  of  an  abstract  principle  which 
those  responsible  for  the  measure  did  not  recognize.  On  account 
of  this  wide  difference  of  opinion  concerning  taxation,  the  oppo- 
sition to  the  act  in  America  was  predominantly  political.  The 
resistance,  however,  had  also  an  economic  basis.  The  act  was 
economically  untenable  on  account  of  the  scarcity  of  coin,  and 
would  no  doubt  have  been  a  hindrance  to  trade,  if  it  had  been 
enforced. ^^  The  small  amount  of  specie  in  this  district  was  for 
the  most  part  Spanish  coin  which  came  through  the  West  Indian 
trade  or  by  smuggling.  Paper  currency  was  the  usual  medium 
of  exchange.  While  this  answered  the  purposes  of  the  trade 
within  the  district,  its  depreciation  rendered  it  useless  outside. ^'^ 
It  could  not  be  used  for  remittance  to  Great  Britain  and  was  not 
accepted  in  payment  of  duties.  Thus  any  bill  such  as  the  stamp 
act,  which  demanded  sterling  in  payment  was  not  only  a  hard- 
ship, but  impossible  of  execution  because  there  was  no  metallic 
money  available.^^ 

In  the  examination  of  merchants  before  the  house  of  lords 
this  point  was  clearly  brought  out.  A  merchant  was  asked  if  he 
thought  that  a  modification  of  the  stamp  act,  so  as  to  permit  the 
colonies  to  pay  in  goods  instead  of  specie,  would  make  it  reason- 
able. He  answered  in  the  affirmative.  To  the  question,  "If  the 
stamp  act  had  been  executed  without  opposition,  would  you  have 
usually  answered  orders,"  he  replied,  'T  should  have  considered 
them  disabled  to  the  amount  of  the  tax  and  would  therefore 
shorten  my  credit."    The  same  merchant  also  said  that,  if  the  act 


^"Addit.  Mss.,  33030,  f.  163.  Franklin  said,  in  his  examination  before 
the  house  of  lords,  that  the  act  was  impracticable  because  the  posts  did 
not  go  back  into  the  country. 

"C.  O.,  5:1289,  pp.  17-31. 

='C.  O.,  5:1270. 

T.,  I,  471. 

Paper  Currency  was  worth  35  per  cent  exchange  on  London,  in  1723, 
but  rose  to  70  per  cent  before  the  close  of  the  colonial  period. 


Trade;  of  the;  De;laware;  District  295 

continued  and  was  submitted  to,  he  would  decline  to  send  goods, 
except  when  they  were  paid  for  in  advance.^'' 

As  the  act  was  never  enforced  in  Pennsylvania,  hardship  of 
this  sort  was  not  felt ;  but  the  determination  not  to  obey  it  ob- 
structed trade  in  such  a  way  that  many  feared  its  consequence. 
The  date  set  for  the  enforcement  of  the  measure  was  November 
1st.  In  spite  of  the  lateness  of  the  season  nothing  was  done  for  a 
month.  In  the  meantime  vessels  were  not  allowed  to  clear  with- 
out stamped  paper,  and  the  distributors,  fearing  the  violence  of 
the  mob,  did  not  distribute  the  stamps.  On  December  1st,  1765, 
the  collector  and  comptroller  wrote  to  the  commissioners  of  the 
customs : 

"We  make  no  doubt  that  your  honours  will  have  heard,  long 
before  this  reaches  you,  of  the  opposition  made  in  all  parts  of 
America  to  the  stamp  act  and  that  the  papers  are  arrived  in  the 
different  colonies  [and  that]  the  people  will  not  receive  them  nor 
suffer  them  to  be  used.  We  have  been  ever  since  the  first  of 
November  (when  the  act  was  to  commence)  and  for  a  long  time 
before  deliberating  about  what  part  would  be  proper  for  us  to  act, 
or  rather  whether  it  would  be  prudent  of  us  to  act  at  all,  as  offi- 
cers of  the  customs  without  stamp  paper.  And  we  still  are  at  a 
loss  how  to  determine.  We  have  not  yet  done  anything  since  the 
1st  of  Novemebr,  but  people,  who  have  vessels  loaded,  begin  to 
be  very  uneasy  and  clamorous.  The  winter  is  near  at  hand  and 
we  may  expect  in  a  short  time  that  our  navigation  will  be  stopt  by 
ice.  The  harbour  is  full  of  vessels  and,  if  we  don't  begin  soon 
to  permit  them  to  depart  they  will  probably  be  shut  up  all  winter, 
which  will  occasion  great  distress,  and  perhaps  ruin  to  many  of 
His  Majesty's  subjects,  and  at  the  same  time  be  a  means  of  lessen- 
ing the  revenue  of  customs. 

"What  we  have  said  above  is  on  a  supposition  that  it  is  in 
our  power  to  detain  them ;  but  that  is  not  the  case.  We  dare  not 
do  it  if  we  would.  People  will  not  sit  and  see  their  interest  suffer 
and  perhaps   ruin  brought  upon  themselves  and   families   when 


="Addit.  Mss.,  33030,  f.  163. 

Examination  of  Merchants  before  the  House  of  Lords,  1765. 


296  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

they  have  it  in  their  power  to  redress  themselves.  What  has 
lately  happened  at  New  York  (and  the  same  spirits  prevail  as 
strongly  here)  is  sufficient  to  convince  us  that  it  is  in  vain  for  us 
to  contend  against  the  general  voice  of  a  united  people.  We  have 
not  the  least  hopes  of  enforcing  the  act  by  anything  that  we  can 
do,  at  present.  The  people  of  all  ranks  are  so  averse  to  it  that  we 
do  not  know  whether  they  had  rather  see  the  city  laid  in  ashes 
than  submit  to  it.  We  may  lessen  ourselves  in  the  esteem  of  the 
people  and  expose  the  weakness  of  your  power  to  put  this  or 
any  other  law  into  execution,  if  at  this  time  we  obstinately  refuse 
to  comply  with  their  requests;  and  we  can  see  no  good  conse- 
quences that  can  possibly  ensue  from  it,  so  that  upon  the  whole 
we  are  of  opinion  that  it  will  be  best  to  let  the  business  of  the 
custom  house  to  go  on  as  usual  till  we  receive  instructions  to  the 
contrary.  The  surveyor  general  is  of  this  opinion,  but  he  does  not 
choose  to  give  us  any  orders  as  he  cannot  undertake  to  indemnify 
us  against  the  penalties  of  an  act  of  parliament.  As  this  is  an 
unprecedented  case,  we  have  no  rule  to  walk  by  and,  therefore 
hope  the  most  favourable  construction  will  be  put  on  our  con- 
duct. We  have  waited  thus  long  in  order  to  be  at  a  greater  cer- 
tainty whether  the  stamps  were  to  be  had  or  not.  As  there  is  not 
the  least  possibility  of  getting  them,  we  must  submit  to  necessity 
and  do  without  them,  or  else  in  a  little  time  people  will  learn  to 
'do  without  them,  or  us,  as  no  custom-house  officer  in  America 
dare  venture  to  seize  a  vessel,  even  if  she  came  without  any 
papers  at  all."^^ 

Seven  days  later,  Charles  Stuart,  surveyor-general  in  America, 
wrote  to  the  commissioners  of  the  customs  thus :  "All  of  the 
distributors  of  stamps  between  Halifax  and  St.  Augustine  have 
been  compelled  to  resign  their  commissions,  and  no  stamp  paper 
can  be  obtained  in  all  these  countries.  This  has  thrown  them  into 
great  confusion.  The  courts  of  law  are  shut,  redress  for  injuries 
cannot  be  obtained,  debts  recovered  nor  property  secured  nor 
transferred.    But  the  evils  necessarily  occasioned  by  a  stop  to  the 


""H.  of  L.  Mss.,  1,  December,  1765,  Extract  of  a  letter  from  the  col- 
lector and  comptroller  of  Philadelphia  to  the  commissioner  of  the  customs. 


Tr.\de  of  the  Delaware  District  297 

internal  business  and  police  of  the  colonies,  are  not  equal  to  the 
consequences  of  shutting  up  their  ports  at  this  season  of  the 
year.  Permit  me  briefly  to  enumerate  a  few  of  them.  Thousands 
of  seamen  and  others,  whose  sole  dependence  is  on  navigation  are 
not  only  rendered  useless  to  their  country,  but  deprived  of  the 
means  of  subsistence ;  provisions,  for  which  at  this  time  there  are 
large  orders,  particularly  for  corn  for  France  and  Spain,  Portu- 
gal, the  Mediterranean,  etc.,  must  perish  on  hand,  while  famine 
may  spread  through  our  West  Indian  Islands,  by  being  suddenly 
cut  off  from  their  usual  supplies;  Ireland  would  be  greatly  dis- 
tressed for  want  of  flax  seed  from  hence  on  which  her  linen 
manufacture  depends ;  other  articles  of  produce  by  which  remit- 
tance may  be  made  are  detained  in  this  country,  the  revenue  les- 
sened, and  trade  and  navigation,  the  source  of  wealth  and  the 
support  of  the  maritime  and  commercial  nation,  entirely  stopped, 
which  must  be  attended  with  ruin  to  multitudes  and  distress  to 
all.  These  are  weighty  considerations,  but  a  stronger  induce- 
ment for  proceeding  to  business  here  and  at  New  York  still  re- 
mains. 

"The  officers  at  both  places  have  by  their  address  and  prudence 
evaded  for  a  full  month  granting  clearances,  in  hopes  that  some 
way  would  be  opened  by  which  they  might  be  extricated  out  of 
their  difficulties;  that  time  did  not  pass  without  strong  applica- 
tion and  even  threats,  which  they  had  great  reason  to  believe 
would  soon  become  very  serious.  It  is  supposed  there  are  now 
in  this  port  150  sail  of  vessels.  The  frost  generally  sets  in  about 
Christmas,  and  continues  upward  of  two  months.  Nothing  is 
more  certain  than  that  so  great  a  number  of  seamen  shut  up  for 
that  time  in  a  town  destitute  of  all  protection  to  the  inhabitants, 
even  of  militia,  would  commit  some  terrible  mischief,  or  rather 
they  would  not  suffer  themselves  to  be  shut  up,  but  would  com- 
pel the  officers  to  clear  vessels  without  stamps.  This  would  un- 
doubtedly have  been  the  consequences  of  a  few  days  longer  delay, 
and  I  need  not  add  it  would  have  been  highly  imprudent  to  have 
hazarded  the  event.    The  least  evil  attending  it  would  in  all  proba- 


298  Smith  Coi.i.e;ge;  Studies  in  History 

bility  have  been  the  loss  of  about  five  thousand  pounds  belonging 
to  the  revenue  of  the  custom  house. """'^ 

The  political  opposition  became  so  great  that  the  act  was  re- 
pealed in  1766.  At  the  same  time  changes  were  made  in  the  sugar 
act  of  1764  which  had  caused  so  much  discontent.  The  duty  on 
molasses  was  lowered  to  Id.  per  gallon.  Export  duties  were  im- 
posed upon  oriental  and  French  goods,  and  the  colonial  import 
duties  on  these  articles  were  repealed.  Coffee  and  pimento  were 
charged  with  import  duties  when  coming  into  Great  Britain,  in- 
stead of  the  former  export  duties. *^2 

The  repeal  of  the  stamp  act  completely  defeated  the  British 
ministry  in  their  attempt  to  raise  revenue.  There  is  little  doubt 
but  that  they  were  at  a  loss  to  find  some  way  to  meet  the  large 
expense  of  the  elaborate  machinery  set  up  in  the  colonies.  Fur- 
thermore, in  spite  of  the  fact  that  men  like  Chatham  and  Burke 
were  pointing  out  the  fallacy  of  their  method,  the  ministers  did 
not  seem  to  grasp  the  distinctions  which  the  colonists  drew  be- 
tween internal  and  external  taxation.  Thinking  that  he  was  mak- 
ing a  difference  Charles  Townshend  drew  up  the  act  which  im- 
posed duties  on  glass,  paper,  painters'  colors,  red  and  white  lead, 
and  tea.f'"^  It  seems  strange,  if  his  motive  was  purely  economic, 
that  articles  such  as  glass,  paper,  painters'  colors  and  lead  should 
be  chosen.  They  were  not  necessities  and  the  manufacturers  of 
these  articles  depended  largely  upon  the  colonial  market. 

The  objections  raised  against  this  act  were  also  principally 
political.  It  would  have  meant  a  slight  hardship  to  pay  the  duties 
on  account  of  the  lack  of  specie,  but  that  consideration  was  in- 
significant compared  with  the  desire  to  defeat  the  underlying 
principle  of  taxation.  The  belief  that  taxation  without  repre- 
sentation was  unjust  was  becoming  more  widely  accepted,  and  by 
1770,  had  completely  eclipsed  the  economic  motive  for  resistance. 


"  H.    of    L.    Mss.,    Letter    from    Charles    Stuart,    surveyor-general    in 
America  to  the  commissioner  of  the  customs. 
"=6  Geo.  Ill,  c.  52. 
''7  Geo.  Ill,  c.  56. 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  299 

In  that  year  the  ministry  were  compelled  to  repeal  all  the  duties 
imposed  in  1767  except  that  on  tea."^ 

The  tea  duty  has  received  a  great  deal  of  attention  in  accounts 
of  this  period  of  colonial  history.  It  has  always  been  considered 
as  the  supreme  test  of  the  ability  of  the  colonies  to  maintain  their 
principles  of  taxation,  and  as  such  has  held  an  important  place  in 
their  political  annals.  From  the  point  of  view  of  imperial  trade 
the  issue  was  more  complicated.  The  East  India  Company  and 
its  relation  with  the  home  government  between  1767  and  1773, 
gave  rise  to  numerous  troublesome  questions. ^^  Moreover,  the 
problem  demands  attention  here  because  the  colonial  trade  was 
deeply  concerned.  In  order  to  present  the  real  position  of  the 
government  and  the  economic  reasons  why  the  act  was  passed,  it 
is  necessary  to  discuss  the  fiscal  difficulties  which  arose  between 
the  government  and  the  East  India  Company. 

In  the  early  part  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  East  India 
Company  had  become  the  sole  legal  carrier  of  tea  to  England  and 
her  colonies. ^^  The  use  of  tea  had  become  very  prevalent,  and  as 
a  result  the  company  was  making  enormous  profits.  In  1767, 
when  it  was  taken  as  one  of  the  articles  upon  which  a  duty  was 
imposed,  the  company,  in  order  to  extend  the  home  consumption 
and  exportation  of  tea,  applied  to  the  house  of  commons,  "to  take 
ofif  for  a  limited  time  the  inland  duty  of  one  shilling  per  pound 
weight  on  all  black  and  single  teas  consumed  in  Great  Britain, 
and  to  allow  a  drawback  on  all  custom  house  duties''^  upon  tea 
exported  to  Ireland  and  the  British  dominions  in  North  America 
for  a  limited  time,  and  they  declared  themselves  willing  to  indem- 
nify the  public  in  respect  to  the  said  drawback  and  inland  duty 


**  10  Geo.  Ill,  c.  17. 

■^C.  O.  5:1283,  p.  59.  Alaryland  Gazette,  25  January,  1770,  American 
opinion  concerning  the  repeal  of  the  revenue  act. 

**  Treasury  Solicitor  Papers.     Bundle  3321. 

"'Farrand.  M.,  The  Taxation  of  Tea  1767-1773— [Am.  Hist.  Review, 
Vol.  3,  p.  266.] 

The  custom  duties  "consisted  of  the  Old  and  New  subsidies,  and  other 
subsidies  granted  at  various  times,  which  amounted,  in  1767,  to  £23, 
18.y.  7\-2d.  on  every  ilOO  of  the  gross  price,  or  about  24  per  cent. 

Baldwin,  Survey  of  British  Customs  (London,  1779)  Part  II,  pp.  26-31. 


300  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

taking  the  said  inland  duty  and  the  duties  of  customs  so  to  be 
drawn  back  at  a  medium  of  five  years. "^^ 

The  petition  was  granted,  and,  on  the  first  of  September, 
1768,  the  treasury  appHed  for  the  sum  of  £57,419  5s.  6d.,  which 
according  to  their  account  was  due  from  the  East  India  Company. 
Their  method  of  reckoning  was  as  follows : 

The  net  produce  of  all  the  duties 
of  customs  upon  teas  for  five  years 
ending  the  5th  of  July,  1767 $1,333,346     14^.    9d. 

The  net  produce  of  all  the  excise 
duties  upon  teas  for  five  years 
ending  the  5th  of  July,  1767 2,261,483     10      5 

Total    £3,594,830      5^.   2d. 

Average    £718,966      \s.   Od. 

The  net  produce  of  all  the 
duties  of  customs  upon  teas  for 
the  year  ending  5th  July,   1768....    £382,981     Us.   4d. 

The  net  produce  of  all  the  duties 
of  excise  upon  teas  for  the  year 
ending  5th  July,   1768 310,867      5      8 

Total    £693,849      Os.   Od. 

The  net  produce  of  all  the  duties 
of  customs  upon  the  importation 
of  teas  which  were  exported  to 
Ireland  and  the  British  colonies  in 
America  for  five  years  ending  July 
5,  1767,  amounted  to £161,511      2s.    6d. 

Average    £32,302      4s.   6d. 

£661,546     15:?.    6d. 
Amount  due   from  the  East  India 
Company     £57,419     15.y.    6d. 

The  'director  of  the  company  objected  to  the  accounts  on  the 
ground  that  the  duties  of  customs  for  the  year  ending  the  5th 
of  July,  1768,  were  understated.  The  account  drawn  up  accord- 
ing to  the  directors  stood  thus : 


°*  Treasury  Solicitor  Papers.     Bundle  3321. 

The  company  promised  to  pay  the  deficit  within  forty  days  after  the 
5th  of  July  in  each  year,  if,  after  the  deduction  of  the  average  amount  of 
duties  of  customs  on  tea  exported  from  England  to  Ireland  and  America, 
the  amount  in  the  exchequer  was  not  equal  to  the  previous  average  amount. 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  301 

The  net  produce  of  all  the  duties 
of  customs  upon  teas  for  five  years 
ending  5th  July,  1767 £1,333,346     Us.    9d. 

The  net  produce  of  all  the  duties 
of  excise  upon  teas  for  five  years 
ending  the  5th  July,  1767 2,261,483     10      5 

Total    £3,594,830      5s.   2d. 

Annual    Average    £718,966       \s.    Od. 

The  net  produce  of  all  the  duties 
of  customs  upon  teas  for  the  year 
ending  5th  July,  1768 £441,063      2s.  lOd. 

The  net  produce  of  all  the  duties 
of  excise  upon  teas  for  the  year 
ending  the  5th  of  July,  1768 £310,867      5s.    8d. 

Total    £751,930      8s.   6d. 

The  net  produce  of  all  the  duties 
of  customs  upon  the  importation 
of  teas  which  were  exported  to 
Ireland  and  the  British  colonies  in 
America  for  five  years  ending  the 
5th  July,  1767,  amounted  to £161,511      2s.   6d. 

Average     £32,302      4s.   6d. 

£719,628      4s.   Od." 
Amount  due  from  East  India  Co 662      3s.   Od. 

The  treasury  pointed  out  that  the  sum  of  £441,063  2s.  lOd.  was 
made  up  of  two  parts,  duties  on  importations  of  teas  consumed 
at  home,  £382,981  14^-.  4d.,  and  duties  upon  importation  of  teas 
afterwards  exported,  £58,081  8s.  6d.  The  company  held  that 
since  the  sum  equal  to  the  average  annual  net  produce  of  the 
duties  paid  upon  the  importation  of  teas  exported  to  Ireland  and 
America  were  to  be  deducted,  no  other  amount  ought  to  be.  They 
considered  that,  if  they  had  to  pay  £58,081  8s.  6d.,  then  they  were 
paying  twice  for  the  drawback,  and  to  support  the  argument  they 
quoted  the  clause  beginning  "so  as  the  money  to  be  paid  by  the 
said  company  shall  not  exceed  the  annual  net  produce  during  the 
five  years." 

To  this,  the  treasury  replied :  "Suppose  the  customs  upon 
teas  were  appropriated  to  pay  annuities  and  the  net  produce  di- 
rected to  be  kept  distinct  and  apart  from  the  other  public  revenue 

''Ibid. 


302  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

for  that  purpose.  In  this  case  it  is  manifest  that  the  sum  of 
£382,981  2s.  lOrf.  and  not  the  sum  of  £441,063  2s.  \^d.  would  be 
deemed  the  net  produce  applicable  to  the  payment  of  such  an- 
nuities. Examine  the  books  of  the  customs,  excise  or  salt  offices, 
you  will  find  that  drawbacks  are  not  included  in  the  net  produce 
of  any  revenue.  Common  sense  indeed  will  teach  us  that  the 
sum  of  money  which  never  comes  to  the  use  of  the  public  but  is 
returned  almost  as  soon  as  levied  cannot  with  any  propriety  of 
language  be  called  a  net  produce."'*^ 

The  spirit  of  the  act  went  against  the  company  as  well  as  the 
letter.  It  was  evident  that  the  public  was  in  no  event  to  be  the 
loser,  but  was  to  receive,  during  the  term  of  the  act,  the  same  in- 
come from  tea,  which,  the  quantities  of  tea  sold  continuing  the 
same,  it  would  have  received  had  not  the  inland  duties  been  dis- 
continued and  had  the  drawback  not  been  allowed.  The  test  sum 
which  was  annually  to  be  made  good  to  the  public  was  a  fifth  part 
of  five  years'  receipts  of  money  actually  paid  into  the  exchequer 
and  never  drawn  back."^ 

The  treasury  pointed  out  further  that  it  would  be  natural  to 
expect  the  company  during  the  time  of  the  act  not  only  to  import 
an  amount  sufficient  to  supply  the  Irish  and  American  markets 
for  that  time,  but  enough  for  some  years  to  come,  when  the  draw- 
backs would  cease.  The  exportation  would  then  be  very  small 
for  a  considerable  time.  "Suppose,"  they  said,  "that  the  draw- 
backs upon  teas  amount  communibus  annis  to  £50,000  a  year  and 
that  in  the  four  remaining  years  of  the  bargain  there  will  be  tea 
exported  to  answer  the  Irish  and  American  demand  for  four 
years  after  the  conclusion  of  it.  In  this  case  it  is  evident  that, 
besides  the  loss  of  £50,000  a  year  after  the  drawback  is  resumed, 
they  will,  in  the  course  of  the  next  four  years,  suffer  a  diminu- 
tion of  revenue  to  the  amount  of  £400,000,  if  the  company  are 
permitted  to  enter  their  drawbacks  into  the  annual  account  as  net 
produce  of  the  custom  house  duties."'^^ 


'"Ibid.     (Treas.  Sol.  Papers.     Bundle  3321). 
"  Ibid. 

72 


'■  Ibid. 


Trade;  of  the  Deilaware  District  303 

It  was  also  claimed  that  the  East  India  Company  defrauded 
the  pubHc  considerably  by  contriving  to  change  their  date  of  sale. 
Before  1766  the  company  had  always  had  two  sales,  September 
and  March,  and  the  annual  revenue  was  £763,062  I4s.  lOd.  When 
they  learned  or  believed  that  the  act  of  7  Geo.  Ill,  c.  56,  would  be 
passed,  they  postponed  the  March  sale  to  August.  This  made 
only  one  sale,  in  1767,  and  caused  the  average  to  be  computed 
from  nine  sales  rather  than  ten.  The  company  answered  this 
charge  by  saying  that  the  nine  sales  were  larger  than  the  ten  dur- 
ing the  five  years  before  1762,  and  that  they  were  compelled  to 
put  the  price  very  low  in  order  to  counteract  the  smuggling  under 
high  prices  due  to  duties."^ 

During  the  year  ending  July  5th,  1768,  the  government  suf- 
fered considerably  by  this  arrangement.  It  had  been  agreed  that 
£718,000  or  thereabouts,  was  the  average  of  all  duties  before  the 
act.  The  immense  Cjuantity  of  tea  put  up  for  sale  in  that  year, 
however  low  the  prices  were,  furnished  duties  sufficient  to  make 
good  to  the  government  that  sum  and  some  hundred  pounds  over. 
Besides,  the  government  had  paid  in  drawbacks  £58,000,  and  had 
received  from  the  company  toward  that  sum  only  £32,000.  The 
deficiency  on  the  whole  from  the  average  of  the  foreign  duties 
was  £26,000,  but  towards  the  deficiency  the  American  duty  of  3d. 
should  be  taken  into  account.  Nevertheless  the  government  suf- 
fered and  at  the  same  time  the  company  had  no  deficiency  to 
make  good.  At  the  end  of  the  next  year  the  company  had  to  pay 
£142,000  to  make  up  for  the  deficiency.  The  drawbacks  were 
£67,000,  but,  after  the  deduction  of  the  £32,000  due  to  the  gov- 
ernment, there  remained  only  £35,000. 

In  1770,  the  government  lost  £18,500.  Nevertheless,  during 
the  three  years  the  company  had  lost  through  the  decrease  in  the 
price  of  tea  £600,000,  although  legal  consumption  had  increased 
two-fifths;  £185,000  had  been  paid  for  indemnification  and  the 
government  was  demanding  £80,000  as  the  difference  between 
the  drawback  and  the  annual  £32,000.  It  was  estimated  that  the 
company  would  be  out  £850,000  for  three  years,  if  the  government 

"  Ibid. 


304  Smith  College;  Studies  in  History 

won,  while  the  government  would  not  lose  a  shilling;  if,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  company  succeeded,  they  would  lose  £785,000,  and 
the  government  i80,000.  In  either  case  the  experiment  was  a 
dear  one. 

That  was  the  state  of  affairs  between  the  government  and  the 
East  India  Company  at  the  close  of  1770.  Neither  the  company 
nor  the  government  was  satisfied,  and  matters  did  not  mend  dur- 
ing the  next  few  years.  The  difficulty  seemed  to  lie  with 
the  North  American  colonies.  After- the  repeal  of  the  duties 
on  glass,  painters'  colors  and  lead,  the  disturbances  subsided.  For 
a  time  tea  was  imported,  principally  at  Boston  but  the  amount  was 
so  small  that  the  government  revenues  were  insignificant,  and  the 
company  steadily  lost  money.  The  truth  of  the  matter  was  that 
the  colonists  in  general  did  not  need  to  patronize  the  company, 
because  they  could  supply  themselves  with  tea  smuggled  from  St. 
Eustatius  or  from  Boston,  where  the  merchants  were  not  over 
conscientious  in  carrying  out  the  non-importation  agreement. 

Two  attempts  were  made  to  satisfy  all  parties  concerned.  The 
first,  in  1772,  arranged  that  the  company  should  pay  £718,000  an- 
nually into  the  exchequer,  since  according  to  the  treasury  account 
the  indemnification  was  never  sufficient,  and  according  to  the 
company's  table'^'*  the  company  more  than  indemnified  the  govern- 
ment. This  arrangement  did  not  aid  in  the  American  difficulties 
and  the  company  was  forced  to  store  in  English  warehouses  dur- 
ing that  year  16,000,000  pounds  of  tea,  at  one  shilling  per  pound, 
because  of  the  discontent  in- the  colonies.  Such  pressure  was 
brought  to  bear  upon  the  government  that  the  company  was  al- 
lowed the  privilege  of  importing  tea  directly  into  the  colonies, 
duty  free,  on  the  condition  that  they  would  pay  over  to  the  gov- 
ernment a  sum  equivalent  to  the  former  duties.  It  was  hoped 
that  by  this  method  the  company  would  be  able  to  increase  their 
sales  appreciably,  and  at  the  same  time  remove  the  friction  be- 
tween the  colonies  and  the  mother  country.'''^ 


74 

I 

75  ' 


cf.  Tables,  pp.  300-301. 
Treasury  Solicitor  Papers,  Bundle,  3321. 
As  it  worked  out  through  concessions  to  the  East  India  Co.,  the  colo- 
nists   were   paying   less    for   their   tea  than   people   in   England— See   M 
Farrand— The  Taxation  of  Tea,  1767-1773,  p.  269. 


Trade:  of  the  Delaware;  District  305 

Shortly  after  the  arrangement  was  made  it  became  evident 
that  the  colonies  were  not  going  to  accept  it.  They  saw  no  differ- 
ence between  paying  the  duty  themselves  and  allowing  the  East 
India  Company  to  pay  it  for  them.  Led  on  by  this  idea,  they 
listened  to  those,  who,  for  the  sake  of  a  principle,  were  anxious  to 
thwart  the  plans  of  the  government,  and  to  those — and  these  were 
almost  as  numerous — who  through  fraudulent  means  were  getting 
large  profits  by  importing  tea  from  Holland  and  Boston. '^^  The 
latter  class  never  lost  an  opportunity  to  keep  up  the  fire  of  indig- 
nation against  the  government  and  the  East  India  Company. 

The  general  character  of  the  opposition  to  the  tea  act  in  Amer- 
ica and  the  especially  vigorous  measures  adopted  in  Boston  are 
familiar  facts  of  history.  We  have  only  recently  come  to  realize, 
however,  the  very  important  part  played  by  the  city  of  Philadel- 
phia. The  publication  of  the  lengthy  correspondence  of  James 
and  Drinker  of  Philadelphia,  Pigon  and  Booth  of  London,  and 
their  branch  in  New  York,  proves  almost  conclusively,  not  only 
that  the  resistance  originated  in  Philadelphia,  but  that  the  move- 
ment in  other  colonies  was  largely  directed  by  the  Philadelphia 
leaders.  Moderate  and  without  excessive  ferment,  they  were  able 
to  prevent  the  landing  of  tea,  although  they  allowed  Captain  Ayres 
to  protest,  and  loaned  him  a  sufficient  amount  to  prepare  for  a 
return  voyage.'^' 

Thus  it  seems  that  the  various  acts  passed  during  these  ten 
years  had,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  ministry,  an  economic 
basis.  The  avowed  purpose  of  the  legislation  from  the  beginning 
was  to  increase  the  revenue  and  in  every  instance  the  trade  of  the 
empire  was  the  chief  consideration.  While  it  is  true  that  some 
of  the  demands — for  example,  the  sugar  act — if  enforced,  would 
have  impoverished  certain  parts  of  the  empire  and  enriched  oth- 
ers, that  was  more  or  less  an  incident  in  the  general  imperial 
scheme.      The    difficulties    and    embarrassments    attending    the 


76  . 
77 


'  Treasury  Boiard  Papers,  I,  462. 

Bulletin  of  Friends'  Historical  Society  of  Philadelphia,  Vol.  II,  No. 
3  and  Vol.  Ill,  No.  1. 

Thomas  B.  Taylor,  The  Philadelphia  Counterpart  of  the  Boston  Tea 
Party. 


306  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

"enumerated"  policy  were  no  doubt  recognized  by  those  who 
made  the  demands,  but  to  counteract  the  well  organized  system 
of  smuggling  there  seemed  to  be  no  more  effectual  method  than  to 
make  Great  Britain  the  entrepot  of  the  whole  empire.  On  the 
other  hand  the  resistance  to  the  acts  in  the  Delaware  district  can 
be  defended  on  economic  grounds.  The  very  nature  of  the  trade 
and  the  economic  conditions  of  the  district  forbade  any  restric- 
tions on  the  West  Indian  trade.  Although  an  economic  pressure 
upon  the  trade  is  discernible  only  in  the  sugar  and  stamp  acts, 
nevertheless  the  "enumerated"  policy,  which  continued  during  the 
entire  period  except  for  a  few  alterations,  was  the  chief  cause  of 
the  later  resistance.  It  would  be  impossible  to  explain  except  on 
political  grounds  the  action  taken  towards  the  Townshend  acts 
and  tea  acts.  The  non-importation  agreements  must  be  consid- 
ered as  economic  measures  taken  against  the  general  policy  re- 
flected in  these  acts,  rather  than  against  the  acts  themselves. 


CHAPTER  III 

The;  Ei^i^e;ct  of  the  British  Legisi^ation 

The  numerous  letters  and  pamphlets  written  by  traders  and 
colonists  in  disapproval  of  the  ministerial  program  would  lead  one 
to  conclude  that  the  colonial  trade  was  seriously  hampered,  that 
factories  were  erected  in  large  numbers,  that  imports  and  exports 
rapidly  decreased  and  that  the  high  duties  caused  a  great  deal  of 
hardship.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  however,  that  the  evil  results 
were  greatly  exaggerated.  It  is  possible,  by  considering  the  state 
of  manufactures,  the  custom  house  statistics  of  exports  and  im- 
ports, and  the  amount  of  smuggling  during  the  period,  to  estimate 
roughly  the  real  extent  to  which  the  legislation  was  effective. 

(1)  Manufactures 

The  state  of  manufactures  in  the  colonies  after  1763  is  one  of 
the  best  indications  of  the  efifect  of  the  British  legislation  during 
this  period.  This  is  particularly  true  in  the  case  of  the  Delaware 
district,  whose  traders  were  compelled  to  obtain  British  manu- 
factures though  circuitous  routes.  Restrictions  placed  upon  the 
trade  with  the  West  Indies  and  southern  Europe  affected  their 
ability  to  import  manufactures  quite  as  much  as  duties  upon  goods 
imported  directly  from  Great  Britain. 

Before  1763,  manufactures  had  gained  little  headway  in  the 
district.  The  small  amount  of  woolen  and  linen  produced  was  a 
sign  of  poverty.  Most  of  the  manufactures  were  of  the  house- 
hold type,  the  price  of  labour  being  so  high  that  it  was  unprofit- 
able to  establish  factories.  According  to  Dickinson,  the  situation 
had  changed  by  1765.  He  wrote  to  William  Pitt  in  that  year, 
"Thousands  are  now  in  these  northern  provinces  raising  flocks  of 
sheep  who  never  had  any  before ;  the  price  of  which  animal  and 
their  wool  have  within  two  years  increased  upwards  of  30%. 
Beef,  pork,  wheat  and  our  other  produce  fall  daily  in  their  prices, 
because  the  merchants  cannot  ship  these  commodities  to  other 
markets  as  formerly,  which  greatly  favors  raising  of  sheep;  for 


308  Smith  Collkge  Studies  in  History 

instead  of  fields  of  wheat,  Indian  corn,  and  grazing  pastures  for 
our  cattle,  most  will  in  short  time,  if  things  continue  as  they  are 
at  present,  be  turned  into  sheep  pastures.  Fulling  mills  are  erect- 
ing all  over  the  country,  dyers  and  other  workmen  are  constantly 
arriving  from  home.  It  is  the  opinion  of  most  people  here  that 
more  woolen  clothes  have  been  made  within  the  last  two  years 
than  in  twenty  years  together,  which  real  necessity  has  set  on 
foot.  One  thing  that  greatly  encourages  our  manufactures  in 
general  is  the  lowness  of  wages  of  late,  which  are  likely  still  to 
fall  owing  to  the  great  scarcity  of  cash ;  the  main  obstacle  of  our 
setting  up  manufactures  formerly  being  the  exorbitant  price  of 
labour."! 

According  to  Bagnall,  a  linen  manufactory  was  set  up  in 
Philadelphia  in  1764.  Hemp,  flax  and  land  were  purchased  for 
this  purpose,  and  some  nine  hundred  persons  were  employed.  A 
plant  of  another  kind  was  started  by  Daniel  Mause  two  years 
later.  He  advertised  in  the  Pennsylvania  Gazette  that  he  had 
lately  erected  a  number  of  looms  for  the  manufacture  of  thread 
and  cotton  stockings,  and  other  kind  of  hosiery,  "hoping  the  good 
people  of  this  and  neighboring  provinces  will  encourage  this  his 
undertaking  at  a  time  when  America  calls  for  the  endeavors  of 
her  sons ;  and  as  the  goodness  of  Pennsylvania  made  stockings  is 
so  well  known  and  so  universally  esteemed,  said  Mause  will  work 
up  thread,  cotton,  worsted,  yarn,  etc.,  in  the  best  manner  for  the 
country  gentlemen  or  others  who  may  be  pleased  to  employ  him 
for  a  moderate  satisfaction. "^ 

These  instances  and  a  few  more  represent  the  efforts  made  in 
setting  up  manufactories  in  Pennsylvania  after  1763.  They  were 
at  best  spasmodic  and  temporary.  John  Penn,  writing  on  Janu- 
ary 27,  1767,  said  concerning  manufactures  in  his  province,  "Very 
little  encouragement  is  given  to  such  schemes,  nor  do  I  know  of 
any  actually  carrying  out  at  this  time  except  two.  One  of  these 
was  set  up  about  three  years  ago  in  this  city,  by  private  subscrip- 


'  Chatham  Papers,  Bun.  97.     Dec.  1765.     Letters  from  John  Dickinson. 
'Bagnall,  W.  R.,  Textile  Industries.     1789-1810,  pp.  51-54. 
Pennsylvania  Gazette,  May  1,   1766. 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  '  309 

tion,  for  the  making  of  sail  cloth,  ticking  and  linens,  but  the  per- 
sons concerned  have  already  sunk  money  by  their  project;  for  the 
high  price  of  labour  will  not  allow  any  of  the  articles  to  be  made 
at  so  cheap  a  rate  as  those  of  the  same  quality  and  goodness  man- 
ufactured in  England  and  sold  by  the  retailer  here.  They  have 
therefore  lately  resolved  to  discontinue  that  undertaking."^ 

Penn's  report  differed  considerably  from  that  just  quoted 
from  Dickinson.  The  discrepancy  between  them  is  partly  ac- 
counted for  when  the  purpose  in  each  case  is  analyzed.  Penn  as  an 
official  would  be  anxious  to  give  as  favorable  an  account  as  possi- 
ble of  his  colony ;  while  Dickinson,  who  strongly  opposed  the 
stamp  and  sugar  acts  was  eager  to  give  all  of  the  facts  their  most 
gloomy  aspect.  Nevertheless,  Dickinson  wrote  when  two  acts  were 
in  force  which  were  considered  by  merchants  to  be  pernicious  to 
trade,  and  Penn's  account  came  after  the  repeal  of  one  and  the 
partial  repeal  of  the  other.  Taking  all  things  into  consideration, 
it  seems  that  the  legislation  of  1763-1765  gave  a  little  stimulus  to 
manufactures  in  that  it  drained  the  district  of  specie  and  thus 
made  it  more  difficult  to  get  money  for  remittance  to  England. 
During  the  remaining  years  of  this  period  manufacturing  con- 
ditions remained  about  the  same.  There  were  spasmodic  attempts 
to  erect  plants  of  various  kinds,  but  the  high  price  of  labor,  lack 
of  capital  and  presence  of  free  lands  made  manufacturing  on  a 
large  scale  unprofitable. 

The  various  attempts  to  establish  manufactories  naturally  ac- 
companied a  decrease  in  the  importation  of  manufactures  into  the 
district.  The  merchants,  in  1766,  in  giving  evidence  as  to  the 
inefficacy  of  the  stamp  act,  claimed  that  there  was  a  considerable 
decrease  in  manufactures  sent  from  England.  One  house  gave 
the  following  figures  for  manufactures  sent  to  New  England, 
New  York  and  Pennsylvania : 

1763 il, 131,901      4.y.    4d. 

1764 537,614     13      7 

1765 404,644     14     10^ 


3 


C.  O.,  5  :1281,  p.  69.     John  Penn  sent  anothre  report  with  the  same 
information  on  the   13  June,   1768. 

*  Addit.    Mss.,   33030,    f.    163.     Examination    of    Merchants    before   the 
House  of  Lords,  1765. 


310  Smith  ColIvEge  Studies  in  History 

(2)  Trade  Statistics 

The  export  and  import  trade  statistics  between  Great  Britain 
and  Philadelphia  also  show  a  decided  fluctuation  during  the  per- 
iod. From  1702  to  1763  there  was  a  fairly  steady  increase  in 
spite  of  the  many  wars.  After  1763,  when  the  time  seemed  pro- 
pitious for  a  great  advancement  of  trade,  the  variation  was  not 
only  greater  than  in  the  earlier  period,  but  the  high  mark  of  1760 
was  never  reached  again  in  the  colony  of  Pennsylvania.  While 
it  would  be  too  much  to  assert  that  this  was  wholly  due  to  the 
British  trade  legislation,  the  fact  that  a  decrease  occurs  after  cer- 
tain acts  were  passed  indicates  that  the  trade  was  affected  by 
them.  The  greatest  decrease  of  imports  from  England  came  dur- 
ing the  years  1764-1766  and  1769-1770.'^  Reasons  for  the  first 
instance  may  be  found  in  the  sugar  act  and  stamp  act,  which  cut 
ofif  means  for  getting  remittances  more  than  any  other  acts.  The 
second  period  covers  the  years  in  which  the  non-importation 
agreements  were  most  effective. 

The  first  instance  of  a  non-importation  agreement  was  in 
1765.  Soon  after  the  stamp  act  congress,  which  presented  the  po- 
litical reasons  why  the  act  should  be  repealed,  a  paper  containing 
six  resolutions  was  passed  around  in  Philadelphia  from  house  to 
house  and  from  store  to  store  for  signers.  Among  other  things  it 
was  agreed  that  the  subscribers  should  countermand  all  orders  for 
British  manufactures,  unless  they  were  articles  which  could  be 
used  in  American  manufactories,  and  that  if  goods  were  imported 
the  sale  of  them  should  be  prevented. ° 

It  would  be  difficult  to  determine  what  force  these  resolutions 
exerted,  as  the  closing  of  the  harbors  at  Philadelphia  between 
November  1st  and  December  1st  accomplished  their  object.  After 
the  customs  officers  began  to  clear  vessels  without  stamped  paper 
the  act  was  for  all  practical  purposes  null  and  void. 


'See  App.  IV. 

"  Pa.  Hist.  Soc.  Mss.,  An.  340.  Non-importation  agreement  signed  by 
the  merchants  in  Philadelphia  25  Oct.  1765.  According  to  the  grandson 
of  William  Bradford,  one  of  the  principal  factors  in  the  movement,  this 
paper  was  "the  first  public  act  in  the  country  declaring  resistance  to  the 
oppressive  acts  of  the  British  crown." 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  311 

No  other  concerted  efforts  were  made  until  after  the  revenue 
act.  In  the  meantime  the  quartering  of  troops  in  Boston,  the  ap- 
pointment of  officers  out  of  sympathy  with  the  colonial  trade, 
the  suppression  of  the  New  York  legislature,  and  the  stationing  of 
cutters  in  the  harbors,  had  added  to  the  flame  kindled  by  the  acts 
passed  previous  to  1766.  On  the  passage  of  the  revenue  act  and  the 
establishment  of  the  customs  board,  attempts  were  made  to  in- 
terest British  merchants  in  the  American  distress.  For  this  pur- 
pose associations  of  economy  and  non-importation  of  superflu- 
ities were  formed  in  most  of  the  northern  colonies.'  From  a 
letter  of  New  York  merchants  to  merchants  in  Philadelphia,  dated 
Sept.  1,  1768,  it  is  evident  that  these  attempts  were  of  several 
months  standing.^  They  referred  to  a  previous  invitation,  given 
to  Philadelphia  merchants  to  enter  an  association  of  non-importa- 
tion, and  complained  that  the  scheme  had  fallen  short  because  they 
had  waited  for  the  Philadelphia  merchants  to  act.  They  consid- 
ered the  time  of  year  most  propitious  because  of  the  spring  or- 
ders, and  were  determined  to  proceed  without  the  aid  of  Philadel- 
phia.^ 

The  Philadelphia  merchants  were  the  last  to  enter  the  associa- 
tion. John  Penn  wrote  in  July,  1770,  "The  reasons,  given  by  the 
merchants  here  for  delaying  to  adopt  the  measures  so  long,  were 
because  they  judged  any  such  rash  and  untimely  resolutions,  in- 
stead of  answering  the  purpose  intended  by  them,  would  rather 
irritate  the  government  against  them  and  be  the  means  of  frus- 
trating the  design  of  the  petitions,  which  had  been  sent  by  the  as- 
sembly of  this  province  to  the  king  and  parliament,  and  there- 
fore they  thought  it  most  advisable  to  decline  entering  into  any 


'C.  O.,  5:1283,  p.  67. 

*Pa.  Hist.  Soc.  Mss.  Society  of  Collection  Letters  from  New  York 
Merchants. 

Broadsides  A.  B.  1,  No.  129.  Pa.  Hist.  Soc.  This  paper  published  25 
April,  1768,  shows  that  the  Philadelphia  merchants  were  also  aroused 
early  in  the  year. 

''C.  O.,  5:1299. 

John  Penn  evidently  refers  to  this  letter  in  his  correspondence  with 
Lord  Hillsborough,  in  1770,  when  he  wrote  that  attempts  had  been  made 
as  early  as  September,  1768. 


312  Smith  Coi^l^ge;  Studies  in  History 

agreement  proposed  by  them,  till  they  should  know  the  success  of 
these  petitions.  But  afterwards,  on  hearing  they  were  not  likely 
to  have  the  desired  effect,  they  immediately  joined  heartily  in  the 
general  association. "^"^ 

The  merchants  of  Philadelphia  finally  agreed  on  the  10th  of 
March,  1769,  that  they  would  also  restrict  importation.  The 
agreement  varied  in  different  colonies,  but  in  general  the  follow- 
ing was  accepted  by  all : 

(1)  Nothing  was  to  be  imported  which  was  taxed  by  parlia- 
ment for  the  purpose  of  raising  a  revenue  in  America,  except  pa- 
per not  exceeding  six  shillings  per  ream  and  such  articles  as  had 
already  been  ordered. 

(2)  Enumerated  goods  were  not  to  be  imported. 

(3)  Wines  were  not  to  be  imported. 

(4)  No  ewe  lambs  that  would  be  weaned  before  the  first  of 
May  were  to  be  killed. 

(5)  If  any  enumerated  goods  were  imported,  importers, 
agents  and  managers  were  not  to  be  allowed  to  make  use  of 
them. 

(6)  Persons  disobeying  these  articles  were  to  be  boycotted. 

(7)  After  the  expiration  of  six  months  none  of  the  enum- 
erated articles  were  to  be  imported  from  any  other  colony  which 
had  imported  them  from  Great  Britain. 

(8)  No  tradesman  or  merchant  was  to  take  advantage  of  the 
scarcity  of  these  goods  to  enhance  prices. ^^ 

When  it  was  learned  that  the  house  of  commons  had  agreed 
to  pass  a  bill  for  the  repeal  of  duties  on  paper,  glass,  painters' 
colors  and  lead,  but  that  the  duty  on  tea  was  to  be  continued,  the 
merchants  of  Philadelphia  had  a  general  meeting  to  consider  the 
best  plan  of  conduct  to  be  pursued.     They  desired  to  wait  until 


'"C.  O.,  5:1299.     Letter  from  John  Penn  to  Lord  Hillsborough,  1770. 

C.  O.,  5:1300.  Letter  from  Lord  Hillsborough  to  John  Penn  in  which 
he  said  "it  would  have  redounded  greatly  to  the  honour  of  the  merchants 
of  Philadelphia,  if  they  had  kept  to  the  resolution  in  which  they  so  long 
persisted  by  declining  any  association  against  importation  from  Great 
Britain."  See  also  Annual  Register,  1765,  p.  55.  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc,  VH, 
pp.  799-800. 

"  C.  O.,  5:1282,  Non-importation  agreements. 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  313 

the  5th  of  June  before  taking  any  steps,  that  they  might  learn 
the  sentiments  of  the  merchants  of  the  neighboring  colonies  and 
act  in  concert  with  them.  On  the  5th  of  June  another  meeting 
was  held,  and  it  was  determined  that  there  should  be  no  altera- 
tion in  the  agreement  which  they  had  entered  upon  on  the  10th 
of  March,  1769.12 

The  feeling,  which  existed  among  the  merchants  of  Philadel- 
phia at  this  time,  is  best  shown  in  a  letter  written  by  James 
Drinker  to  his  partner  Abel  James  on  the  29th  of  April,  1770. 
"I  have  heretofore  mentioned  to  thee  the  restlessness  and  dissatis- 
faction of  many  of  the  importers  under  the  present  agreements ; 
the  pretexts  for  such  uneasiness  have  been  that  the  burden  was 
unequally  borne.  While  the  importers  of  wine,  molasses,  etc., 
were  pursuing  their  trade  to  considerable  advantage  and  paying 
large  sums  into  the  treasury  for  revenues  raised  out  of  those  ar- 
ticles, the  importers  of  British  goods  were  standing  still  and  sac- 
rificing all  for  the  public  good.  That  our  agreement  subjected  us 
in  many  instances  to  hardships  which  the  other  colonies  had  in 
their  agreement  wisely  guarded  against.  At  Boston  baize  for 
fishermen  was  an  excepted  article.  Maryland  imports  all  coarse 
woolens  at  or  under  eight  shillings  per  yard,  and  are  running 
away  with  our  trade  for  Indian  goods  and  all  others  which  that 
price  will  comprehend.  Albany  continues  importing  for  their 
Indian  trade;  our  Indians  must  be  properly  and  reasonably  sup- 
plied with  clothing  and  other  necessaries,  which  in  our  present 
circumstances,  the  traders  must  apply  for  to  Maryland  or  Albany. 
That  in  the  agreement  formed  on  the  10  March,  1769,  a  great 
number  of  persons  signed  who  were  not  importers,  yet  these  by 
the  tenor  of  the  agreement,  are  to  determine  as  to  our  trade  and 
property,  and  have  a  vote  in  the  altering,  releasing  and  annulling 
the  same.  It  is  further  urged  that  so  far  as  we  have  tried  the 
experiment,  it  has  proved  grievous  to  many,  and  that  a  number  of 


'^C.   O.,  5:1300,   Letter  written  by  John   Penn  to   Lord  Hillsborough, 
September  5,  1770. 


314  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

shopkeepers  and  importers,  who  have  but  small  capitals,  must 
sink  under  it  if  continued  another  season. "^^ 

In  the  spring  of  1770  the  non-importation  agreements  began 
to  break.  The  repeal  of  the  revenue  act  on  April  12th,  1770, 
without  the  repeal  of  the  duty  on  tea,  caused  a  dissension  among 
the  American  merchants  regarding  importation.  On  the  10th  of 
May  the  principal  merchants  of  Albany  wrote  to  the  merchants  in 
New  York  thus : 

"We  are  desired  by  the  merchants  of  this  place  to  acquaint 
you  that  they  have  this  day  resolved  to  make  null  and  void  their 
articles  of  non-importation  entered  into  last  summer,  and  are 
agreed  to  import  all  sorts  of  merchandise  from  Great  Britain  as 
before  the  agreement  of  non-importation  was  entered  into,  except 
the  article  of  tea  which  they  have  agreed  not  to  import  till  the 
duty  on  the  same  shall  be  taken  off.  We  hope  our  resolution 
may  be  approved  of  by  the  merchants  and  traders  of  your 
place."i4 

This  news  was  received  with  disapprobation  by  some  of  the 
merchants  in  New  York.  Isaac  Low  wrote  on  the  26th  of  May 
to  merchants  in  Philadelphia  informing  them  of  the  action  taken 
by  the  Albany  merchants  and  expressing  his  astonishment  at  the 
"hasty  and  unwarrantable  resolution,"  but  he  hoped  that  it  would 
not  influence  any  of  the  merchants  of  New  York  or  Phila- 
delphia.^^ 

It  is  quite  evident,  however,  from  a  letter  of  Lieutenant  Gov- 
ernor Golden  to  the  Earl  of  Hillsborough,  dated  the  16th  of  May, 
that  there  were  a  number  of  merchants  in  New  York,  Philadel- 
phia and  Boston  who  were  likewise  ready  to  give  up  the  agree- 
ment. 

"The  merchants  in  this  place  and  in  Philadelphia  have  under 
consideration,  whether  to  import  goods  from  Great  Britain  or  not. 
I  am  told  the  majority  both  in  this  place  and  Philadelphia  are 


"  Pennsylvania  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  Vol.  14,  p.  42. 
Printed  Correspondence  of  James  Drinker  to  his  partner  Abel  James. 
"  Pa.  Hist.  Soc.  Mss.  Society  of  Collection,  Merchants'  Letters. 
"  Ibid. 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  315 

for  importing,  and  that  they  will  come  to  a  determination  in  a 
few  days.  The  party  in  opposition  to  the  present  administration 
join  with  the  people  of  Boston  in  measures  to  prevent  importa- 
tion and  for  that  purpose  stole  late  in  the  night  last  week  a  pro- 
cession of  the  mob  to  expose  a  Boston  importer,  who  happened 
to  come  to  this  place.  The  magistrates  knew  nothing  of  the  de- 
sign till  it  was  too  late,  otherwise,  I  believe  it  would  have  been 
prevented.  Tho'  the  parties  are  much  exasperated  against 
each  other,  I  hope  the  public  peace  will  be  preserved,  and  the  is- 
sue will  be  favourable  to  the  government."^ ^ 

Three  weeks  later,  on  the  7th  of  July,  1770,  Golden  again 
wrote  to  Hillsborough.  This  letter  indicates  a  wide  divergence  of 
opinion  existing  between  the  merchants  of  Philadelphia  and  New 
York.  He  said,  "Soon  after  it  was  known  that  the  parliament 
had  repealed  the  duties  on  paper,  glass,  etc.,  the  merchants  in 
this  place  sent  to  Philadelphia  that  they  might  unitedly  agree  to  a 
general  importation  of  everything  except  tea.  They  at  first  re- 
ceived a  favourable  answer,  and  their  agreement  to  the  proposal 
was  not  doubted ;  but  soon  after  a  letter  was  received  at  Philadel- 
phia from  a  gentleman  in  England,  in  whom  the  Quakers  in  that 
place  repose  the  greatest  confidence,  advising  them  to  persist  in 
non-importation,  till  every  internal  taxation  was  taken  off;  this 
changed  the  measures  of  Philadelphia;  but  the  principal  inhabi- 
tants of  this  place  continue  resolved  to  show  their  gratitude  for 
the  regard  the  parliament  has  in  removing  the  grievances  they 
complained  of.  As  there  still  remains  a  restless  faction,  who  from 
popular  arguments,  rumours  and  invectives,  are  endeavouring  to 
excite  riots  and  opposition  among  the  lower  class  of  people  a  num- 
ber of  gentlemen  went  round  the  town  to  take  the  sentiments  of 
the  individuals.  I  am  told  that  1180,  among  which  are  the  prin- 
cipal inhabitants,  declared  for  importation,  about  300  were  neutral 
or  unwilling  to  declare  their  sentiments,  and  a  few  of  any  dis- 
tinction declared  in  opposition  to  it.  I  am  informed  likewise 
that  the  merchants  of  this  place  resolved  to  acquaint  the  mer- 


"N.  Y.  Col.  Doc,  Vol.  VIII.  pp.  214-5. 
6 


316  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

chants  of  Boston  and  Philadelphia  with  their  inclination  to  im- 
port."i7 

The  "gentleman  in  England,"  referred  to,  was,  in  all  proba- 
bility, Benjamin  Franklin,  who  was  in  England  at  that  time.  A 
letter  from  him  as  agent  for  Pennsylvania  and  Massachusetts, 
written  on  the  18th  of  March,  1770,  to  a  correspondent  in  Amer- 
ica, concluded  with  this  remark :  "In  short  it  appears  to  me, 
that  if  we  do  not  now  persist  in  this  measure  until  it  has  had  its 
full  effect,  it  can  never  again  be  used  on  any  future  occasion  with 
the  least  prospect  of  success,  and  that  if  we  do  persist  another 
year  we  shall  never  afterwards  have  occasion  to  use  it."^*' 

It  is  impossible  to  determine  whether  or  not  the  decision  to 
retain  the  non-importation  agreement  in  Philadelphia  was  influ- 
enced by  this  letter.  It  is  certain,  however,  that  after  receiving 
word  from  New  York  that  a  majority  of  the  merchants  there  had 
resolved  to  import  everything,  except  tea  and  other  articles  on 
which  duties  might  subsequently  be  imposed,^''*  the  inhabitants  of 
Philadelphia,  the  suburbs  and  a  great  number  from  the  country, 
met  in  the  State  House  and  adopted  the  following  resolutions : 

"1.  That  the  non-importation  agreement  entered  into  by  the 
merchants  and  traders  of  the  colonies  is  a  safe,  peaceable  and 
constitutional  way  of  asserting  our  rights  and,  if  persisted  in, 
there  is  reason  to  believe  it  will  produce  the  desired  effect,  and 
therefore  ought  to  be  considered  as  a  bulwark  of  our  liberty. 

"2.  That  good  effect  depends  upon  perseverance  and  that 
strength  consists  of  union. 

"3.  That  a  breach  of  the  agreement  at  present  cannot  be  owing 
to  any  want  of  real  necessaries,  especially  in  the  northern  colonies, 
and  that  the  partial  repeal  of  the  American  revenue  act  is  no  just 
foundation  for  deviating  from  the  agreement  entered  into ;  as 
the  claim  of  right  to  tax  us  without  our  consent  is  still  kept  up 
and  the  duty  on  tea  retained  as  a  test  of  that  right. 


"Ibid.,  p.  217. 

^*  Smyth,  Writings  of  Benjamin  Franklin,  Vol.  V,  p.  254. 
"  Pa.  Hist.  Soc.  Mss.    Society  of  Collection,  Letter  from  Isaac  Low  and 
others  in  N.  Y.,  26  May.  1770. 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  317 

"4.  That  the  alteration  adopted  by  a  majority  of  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  city  of  New  York  is  a  sordid  and  wanton  defection 
from  the  common  cause,  and  that  by  that  defection  they  have,  as 
much  as  in  them  Hes,  weakened  the  pubHc  character  of  America, 
strengthened  the  hands  of  our  enemies,  and  encouraged  them  to 
prosecute  their  designs  against  our  common  Hberty. 

"5.  That  all  the  bad  consequences  that  may  ensue  to  the  lib- 
erties of  America  by  their  defection  are  chargeable  upon  a  pre- 
vailing faction  in  New  York. 

"6.  That  as  a  testimony  to  the  world  of  our  disapprobation  of 
the  late  measures  adopted  by  that  prevailing  faction  we  will 
break  off  all  commercial  intercourse  with  New  York,  so  far  as 
not  to  purchase  of  any  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  colony  of  New 
York  any  goods  except  alkaline,  salts,  skins,  furs,  flax  and  hemp, 
until  they  return  to  their  agreement  or  until  the  act  of  7  Geo. 
Ill  is  totally  repealed.  And  we  pledge  ourselves  each  to  the 
others  that  if  we  know  of  any  person  attempting  to  bring  into 
this  city  or  province  any  goods  from  New  York  except  these 
above  enumerated,  that  we  will  immediately  give  information  of 
them  to  the  merchants'  committee,  that  their  names  may  be  pub- 
lished in  the  newspapers,  provided  always  that  every  inhabitant 
of  this  place,  town  and  province,  who  has  effects  at  New  York, 
may  have  the  liberty  to  remove  them  from  thence,  provided  it  is 
done  within  six  weeks  from  this  date."-"' 

The  chief  advantage  of  these  agreements  was  that  they  helped 
to  make  the  complaints  of  the  merchants  against  the  revenue  act 
more  effective.  So  far  as  actually  diminishing  the  revenue  was 
concerned,  they  did  not  accomplish  much,  owing  to  the  fact  that 
they  were  frequently  violated.  They  had  scarcely  any  effect  in 
Boston  and  Rhode  Island,  where  merchants  made  little  effort  to 
conceal  the  fact  that  they  imported  manufactures  from  Great 
Britain.  In  Philadelphia  the  association  held  out  the  longest, 
and  statistics  show  considerable  diminution  of  trade;  but  even 
here  the  method  of  procedure  was  found  to  be  impossible,  on 


=°C.  O.,  5:1300.     Inclosure  dated  19  July,  1770,  in  a  letter  from  John 
Penn  to  Lord  Hillsborough. 


318  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

account  of  non-enforcement  in  other  colonies  and  the  overpower- 
ing commercial  interests  of  the  people.  The  great  increase  of 
imports,  in  1771,  indicates  that  the  agreements  had  become  a  dead 
letter  in  Philadelphia. ^^ 

While  the  statistics  show  a  decrease  in  certain  years  in  all 
manufactured  articles  imported  from  Great  Britain,  except  ne- 
cessities, the  trade  in  other  channels  seems  little  afifected.  The 
amount  of  molasses  legally  imported  was  less  in  1765, -^  but  other- 
wise the  West  India  trade  did  not  appreciably  change.  With  the 
exception  of  the  one  year,  1769,  the  tonnage  in  all  the  channels 
of  trade  does  not  vary^s  in  a  marked  degree. 

The  comparatively  slight  deviation  in  the  trade  statistics  is  not, 
however,  a  proof  that  the  trade  of  the  district  did  not  sufifer  from 
the  legislation.  After  the  close  of  the  Anglo-French  struggles, 
when  the  freedom  of  the  seas  was  much  greater,  trade  should 
have  increased  rapidly  in  every  part  of  the  empire.  Furthermore, 
in  determining  the  effect  of  the  legislation  upon  trade  in  the  Dela- 
ware district,  the  failure  of  the  grain  crop  in  Europe  must  be 
taken  into  account.  The  first  important  demand  for  American 
wheat  was  made  in  the  autumn  of  1765  and  1766.  James  Tilgh- 
man  wrote  to  Thomas  Penn  on  the  10th  of  November,  1766 — "I 
believe  you  will  have  a  very  great  receipt  of  money  this  year. 
The  European  demand  for  our  produce  is  a  very  favorable  cir- 
cumstance."^^ 

The  merchants  of  London  who  traded  with  North  America 
felt  this  situation  keenly.  At  one  of  their  meetings  held  on  the 
31st  of  October,  1766,  they  drew  up  the  following  memorial 
which  states  clearly  the  condition  both  in  Europe  and  America : 


"^Appendix  lY. 

^T.,  I,  505. 

The  revenue  collected  in  Pennsylvania  from  the  duty  on  molasses  w^as 
also  less  in  1765  than  it  was  for  the  two  preceding  years: 

1763 £165  Os.  Od. 

1764 1,576        12  6 

1765 91  5  0 

""  Customs,  16:1.     Tables  of  the  West  Indian,  the  Southern  European 
and  the  Wine  Island  trade. 
='Pa.  Hist.  Mss.,  Vol.  X. 


Trade  of  the;  Dei^aware  District  319 

"That  effectual  relief  may  be  obtained  by  a  speedy  importa- 
tion of  wheat  and  flour  from  the  continent  of  America,  where  the 
crops  this  year  have  been  remarkably  plentiful  and  the  grain  par- 
ticularly good  in  quality. 

"That  from  the  latest  advices  from  that  side,  28th  ult.  Phil- 
adelphia, the  best  wheat  might  have  been  purchased  and  im- 
ported into  this  kingdom  at  or  under  33  shillings  per  quarter  in 
which  computation  are  included,  commission  for  purchasing, 
charges  of  shipping,  insurance,  freight,  tonnage  and  port  charge. 

"That  although  the  price  in  America  may  probably  advance 
by  the  orders  which  are  sent  thither  for  the  supply  of  Italy,  there 
is,  nevertheless,  great  reason  to  believe  it  may  be  purchased  in 
America  on  lower  terms  than  in  any  part  of  Europe. 

"That  for  these  considerations  the  undermentioned  persons 
do  agree  to  subscribe  the  several  sums  set  against  their  names 
for  the  purpose  of  importing  wheat  and  flour  from  America. 

"That  a  call  pro  rata,  be  made  on  the  subscribers  as  often  as 
money  is  wanted. 

"That  three  vessels  be  chartered  and  sail  directly  for  this 
purpose. 

"That  orders  be  forwarded  by  them  and  several  others  for 
the  earliest  conveyances  for  purchasing  wheat  and  flour  in 
America,  that  such  a  number  of  vessels  be  chartered  there  as  may 
be  thought  proper. 

"That  the  vessels  shall  be  engaged  to  touch  at  Falmouth  for 
orders  where  to  proceed  to  a  port  of  discharge. 

"That  in  case  the  ports  of  England  are  opened  by  govern- 
ment for  the  admission  of  grain  from  the  British  plantations,  the 
said  vessels  shall  be  ordered  to  such  ports  of  the  kingdom  as  shall 
appear  from  the  best  intelligences  to  be  in  the  greatest  want  of 
bread-corn. 

"That  all  the  grain  imported  shall  be  sold  for  the  benefit  of 
the  manufacturers,  mechanics  and  laborious  poor  without  any 
profit  to  the  subscribers  whatsoever. 

"That  in  case  the  ports  of  Great  Britain  should  not  be  opened 
for  the  admission  of  grain  from  the  British  plantations,  the  said 


320  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

ships  shall  be  ordered  to  such  markets  as  may  appear  to  be  the 
most  advantageous  to  the  subscribers."-^ 

In  1767,  the  situation  was  such  that  wheat  was  imported  from 
the  continent  of  Europe  free  of  duty,-^  and  in  the  next  year  an 
act  was  found  which  permitted  the  importation  of  wheat  from  the 
colonies  free  of  duty.  The  poor  harvests  in  Europe,  during  the 
years  1767,  1769,  1771,  made  it  necessary  to  continue  this  act. 
Thus  the  abnormal  demand  came  at  an  opportune  time  and  helped 
to  counteract  the  difficulties  incident  to  the  enumerated  policy. 

(3)  Illicit  Trade  After  1763 

Statistics  are,  after  all,  very  ineffective  in  measuring  the 
amount  of  trade  under  a  highly  protective  system.  Smuggling 
was  so  prevalent  that  when  allowances  have  been  made  for  all 
the  vessels  which  never  entered,  and  the  undervaluation  of  goods 
which  were  legally  imported,  the  accounts  of  the  custom  officials 
assume  little  importance.  Consequently  the  state  of  illicit  trade 
would  be  a  better  indication  of  the  effects  of  the  British  legisla- 
tion, especially  upon  the  trade  of  this  district,  than  either  the 
number  of  new  manufactures  or  the  fluctuations  of  the  amount 
turned  into  the  exchequer.  One  of  the  chief  aims  of  the  new  acts 
was  the  prevention  of  illicit  trade.  The  government  hoped  to 
secure  as  much  by  that  means  as  by  the  new  export  and  import 
duties,  at  least  enough  to  pay  for  the  various  colonial  establish- 
ments. With  all  the  carefully  worked  out  details  of  the  new 
regulation  there  remained  some  defects  to  which  the  failure  of 
executing  the  laws  may  be  partially  attributed.  Among  these,  one 
of  the  most  noticeable  was  the  small  number  of  authorized  land- 
ing places.  This  was  a  great  handicap  in  the  enforcement  of  such 
clauses  as  the  one  in  the  act  of  7  Geo.  Ill,  c.  46,  which  provided 
"that  from,  and  after,  the  20th  of  November,  1767,  the  master  or 
other  persons  having  or  taking  the  charge  or  command  of  every 
ship  or  vessel  arriving  in  any  British  colony  or  plantation  in 
America  shall  before  he  proceeds  with  his  vessel  to  the  place  of 


"^  Chatham  Papers,  Bun.  97.    31  Oct.,  1766.    Merchants'  Proposal. 
■"7  Geo.  Ill,  c.  4-11. 


Trade;  of  the  De;i,aware  District  321 

unloading,  come  directly  to  the  custom  house  for  the  port,  or  dis- 
trict where  he  arrives,  and  make  a  just  and  true  entry  upon  oath 
before  the  collector  or  comptroller  or  other  principal  officers  of  the 
customs  there,  of  the  burthen,  contents  and  lading  of  such  sloop 
or  vessel."-'  It  was  almost  impossible  to  carry  this  out,  because 
there  were  numerous  harbors  and  places  without  customs  offi- 
ces, where  vessels  were  fitted  out  and  to  which  they  returned  to 
unload  and  discharge.  On  one  occasion  the  following  questions 
were  asked : 

1.  "Must  a  master  bring  his  vessel  to  a  port  or  district  where 
there  is  a  customs  house,  and  may  the  officers  of  the  customs  re- 
fuse to  admit  him  to  an  entry  if  he  does  not  bring  the  vessel? 

Ans.  'Not  necessary  to  bring  the  vessel  in,  but  the  master 
must  apply  for  admittance  before  unloading.' 

2.  "Do  these  regulations  hold  for  coastwise  shipping? 
Ans.     'No.     Only  for  foreign  shipping.'  " 

In  the  first  place,  supposing  a  trader  was  dishonest  enough  to 
carry  on  illicit  trade,  it  is  almost  inconceivable  that  he  would 
cease  to  be  dishonest  at  the  port  of  entry,  when  chances  were  few 
that  a  false  cocket  would  be  detected.  Secondly,  if  the  trader 
had  acted  according  to  the  letter  of  the  law  and  successfully 
evaded  the  detection  of  the  customs  officials,  he  was  able  to  pro- 
ceed in  landing  the  contraband  goods  with  little  difficulty. ^^  On 
the  other  hand,  if  there  had  been  officers  at  the  principal  landing 
places  to  search  the  vessel  carefully,  the  trader  would  no  doubt 
have  been  less  courageous  in  his  dishonest  pursuits.-'' 

Duncan  Stuart,  writing  to  Thos.  Bradshaw  on  the  13th  of 
February,  1769,  from  New  London,  made  this  point  very  clear. 
He  said,  "The  amount  of  duties  collected  in  one  year  was 
£319  3s.  2d.    The  smallness  is  owing  to  several  vessels  belonging 


''  T.,  I,  463. 

7  Geo.  Ill,  c.  46. 

cf.  Chap.  I. 

^  T.,  I,  463.    The  interpretation  of  this  clause  also  rendered  it  useless. 

^  T.,  I,  400.  On  another  occasion  it  was  remarked  that  places  existed 
where  there  were  few  outdoor  officers,  and  in  such  places  the  indoor 
officers  trusted  entirely  to  the  report  of  the  master. 


322  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

to  this  district  having  entered  their  cargoes  at  Boston,  New  York 

and  Philadelphia,  but  there  is  no  doubt  with  me  that  it  is  in  great 

measure  owing  to  a  great  many  goods  being  run,  an  evil  that  in 

my  humble  opinion  can  never  effectually  be  prevented,  unless  sea 

vessels  (whose  burthern  ought  to  be  at  least  70  tons)  are  obliged 

by  law  to  unload  at  particular  quays.     But  as  long  as  vessels  are 

allowed  to  land  their  cargoes  at  the  distance  of  10,  20,  30,  40,  50 

miles  from  the  custom  house,  business  is  and  must  be  carried  on 

in  a  very  loose  manner,  and  all  endeavors  to   check   it  are   in 
vain."3o 

The  opinion  of  Jonathan  Sewall,  attorney-general  of  Massa- 
chusetts Bay,  given  on  the  same  date,  is  worth  considering  as  it 
applies  to  the  Delaware  district  as  much  as  to  Massachusetts.  He 
believed  "that  England  should  appoint  officers  at  one  or  more 
ports  in  every  province,  but  the  boundaries  of  few  or  none  of  the 
ports  have  been  ascertained  by  any  authority  whatsoever.  Trade 
not  being  confined  to  the  places  where  the  officers  reside  but 
being  carried  on  at  places  convenient  to  the  merchants,  vessels 
with  dutiable  goods  often  arrive  at  points  remote,  the  master 
proceeds  by  land  and  makes  report  and  entries  at  the  customs 
house  and  often  never  comes  near  the  customs  house  at  all,  and  as 
little  credit  can  be  given  to  the  report  and  entry,  the  revenue  is 
often  defrauded  and  gives  opportunity  to  the  merchants  to  run 
any  part  of  the  cargo  with  impunity."^^  Soon  after  this  an  in- 
vestigation was  made  concerning  the  towns,  districts  and  ports  of 
America,  but  nothing  was  done  towards  improving  the  condi- 
tions.^^ 

The  fee  system  was  another  fault,  which  had  been  only  par- 
tially corrected,  when  salaries  were  given  to  the  chief  officer  of 
the  vice-admiralty.  Although  a  fee  was  defined  by  law  as  a  "gra- 
tuity given  to  an  officer  over  and  above  his  salary  to  excite  him  to 
a  diligent  performance   of   his   duty,"^^   it  meant  a   dependence 


™T.,  I,  399,  Feb.,  1769. 
"  Ibid. 

32 


Cf.  Chap.  I,  p.  244,  note  10.    Addit.  Mss.,  15484. 
"  C.  O.,  5:1273,  Act  regulating  fees  for  custom-house  officers. 
T.,  I,  471.    Nov.  14,  1767. 


Trade  of  the;  Delaware;  District  323 

because  the  salaries  were  very  small.  The  officers  under  a  highly 
protective  system  were  either  aiding  in  the  illicit  trade  by  granting 
false  certificates,  or  they  were  in  danger  of  suffering  from  in- 
sufficient fees. 

The  amount  of  fees  was  ascertained  in  three  different  ways, 
by  act  of  parliament,  by  custom,  and  by  verdict  of  jury.  At- 
tempts were  made,  in  1765,  to  determine  fees  by  law.  The  clause 
which  concerns  the  customs  house  fees  opens  with  the  words 
"and  in  order  to  prevent  any  disputes  concerning  what  fees  the 
officers  of  His  Majesty's  customs  in  the  British  colonies  or  planta- 
tions in  America  may  be  entitled  to  for  making  entries  or  other 
business  done  by  them  in  the  execution  of  their  employment." 
The  fact  that  a  table  of  fes  was  not  given  proves  that  it  was  to 
stand  upon  no  positive  law  or  authority.  The  law  merely  states 
that  they  should  receive  the  same  fees  as  their  predecessors,  un- 
less they  were  exorbitant  or  contrary  to  an  act  of  parliament. 

The  fees  generally  taken  by  the  naval  officer  at  Philadelphia 
were: 

Entering  and  clearing  vessel £1  7s.  Od. 

Bill  of  health  if  required 6  0 

Making  a  bond  for  enumerated  goods 5  0 

Certificate   for  cancelling  such  bond 5  0 

Certificate  for  taking  naval  stores  to  Great 

Britain     5  0 

For  Governor's  let  passes  for  vessels  above 

60   tons    12  0 

For  Governor's  let  passes  for  vessels  under 

60   tons    10  0"' 

The  fees  of  the  collector  and  comptroller,  the  only  other 
officers  who  received  fees,  were : 

Collector  Comptroller 

Entering   and    clearing   vessels £1         7s.  Od.         £0        9s.     Od. 

Bill  of  health  if  required 0  6  0  0        2        0 

Certificate  for  cancelling  bond 0  5  0  0        10 

Register  and  recording  the  same 0  14  0 

General  permit  for  goods  shipped  on 

board   in   shallop    0  2  0 


T.,  I,  482,  7  Mar.,  1771.     List  of  fees. 


324  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

Collector  Comptroller 

Port    entry    £0        5s.      Od. 

Bill  of  stores  0        2        6 

Certificate    for    Great    Britain 0        5        0  £0        Is.     8d. 

Certificate  for  naval  stores 0        5        0 

There  is  a  wide  discrepancy  in  the  accounts  concerning  the 
officers^^  in  the  Delaware  district  and  their  relations  with  the 
traders.  John  Penn,  in  transmitting  the  above  lists  of  fees  to 
John  Robinson,  a  member  of  the  customs  board  at  Boston,  re- 
marked, "The  collector  informs  me  that  the  merchants  of  this  port 
have  always  cheerfully  paid  the  fees  expressed  in  the  list,  ex- 
cept that  about  twelve  months  ago,  a  number  of  them  objected  to 
some  part  of  them  in  which,  upon  a  conference  with  him  on  the 
subject,  they  afterwards  acquiesced  and  have  ever  since  paid 
them."36 

This  report  indicates  harmonious  relations  between  the  cus- 
toms officers  and  the  traders.  Nevertheless,  it  should  not  be 
taken  too  literally.  Letters  from  governors  of  different  pro- 
vinces show  that  the  home  authorities  were  continually  getting 
word  from  the  merchants  that  there  were  many  obstructions  in  the 
way  of  customs  officers  exerting  their  duties,  and  yet  the  gov- 
ernors seemed  incapable  of  assisting  them  in  time  to  be  of  any 
use.  Often  they  reported  that  they  had  heard  of  none  in  their  re- 
spective colonies.  A  correspondence  between  Lord  Hillsborough 
and  the  proprietors  of  Pennsylvania  shows  to  what  extent  ob- 
structions at  Philadelphia  were  known,  or  perhaps  it  would  be 
more  accurate  to  say,  reported  by  the  governor  of  Pennsylvania. 
Hillsborough  wrote  on  the  19th  of  July,  1771,  to  the  proprietors 
of  Pennsylvania:  "The  lord  commissioners  of  His  Majesty's 
treasury  have  communicated  to  me  several  papers,  received  from 
the  commissioners  of  customs  in  America  relative  to  certain  out- 
rages committed  on  their  officers,  and  the  neglect  of  the  governor 
and  civil  magistrates  in  giving  them  assistance  and  protection, 
and  their  lordships  have  desired  that  I  would  take  such  measures 


'T.,  I,  482,  1  Feb.,  1771. 
C.  O.,  5:1300,  Report  of  John  Penn. 


Trade  of  the  Delaware;  District  325 

as  I  shall  judge  most  expedient,  to  prevent  in  such  governors 
and  civil  magistrates  the  like  neglect  of  their  duty  for  the  future. 

"From  these  papers  it  appears  that  some  of  the  most  violent 
of  these  outrages  have  been  committed  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia, 
particularly  in  the  months  of  April  and  October,  1769,  on  occasion 
of  lawful  seizures  made  by  the  officers  of  the  customs,  when  such 
seizures  were  rescued  by  force  and  violence,  and  the  officers  and 
those  from  whom  they  received  information  of  breaches  of  the 
law  were  treated  with  the  greatest  cruelty  and  inhumanity  in  the 
presence  of  the  magistrate  who  gave  them  no  assistance.  It  has 
given  me  great  concern  to  find  such  acts  of  violence  and  inhu- 
manity in  a  colony,  from  which  I  have  received  such  strong  pro- 
fessions of  loyalty  and  duty  to  the  king,  and  in  a  city  hitherto 
deservedly  commended  for  the  regularity  of  its  government."^'^ 

When  John  Penn  was  informed  concerning  this  letter,  he  wrote 
in  a  very  characteristic  manner  that  he  regretted  extremely  these 
acts  of  violence,  but  he  assured  Hillsborough  that  the  complaints 
were  unfairly  represented,  that  officers  had  nothing  of  which  to 
complain,  and  that  the  colony  was  among  the  first  in  loyalty  to 
the  king.  The  latter  part  of  his  letter  is  in  itself  an  admission  of 
unsatisfactory  trade  conditions  in  the  district.  He  said  that  it 
was  almost  impossible  to  prevent  mob  outrages,  and  that  the  back- 
wardness of  the  people  to  become  informers  added  to  the  diffi- 
culty of  prosecuting  the  leaders. ^^ 

The  affair  of  October,  1769,  may  stand  on  its  own  merits. 
Mr.  Swift,  the  collector  of  Philadelphia,  was  informed  that  39 
pipes  and  10  quarter  casks  of  Fayal  wine  had  been  landed  without 
paying  duty.  When  the  informer  was  discovered,  he  was  tarred 
and  feathered  and  dragged  over  stones.  The  magistrates  took  no 
notice  of  this.  In  the  trial  they  put  the  blame  on  the  collector 
and  said  that  he  had  been  bribed,  but  the  collector  denied  the 
charge,  and  stated  that  he  had  told  the  informer  that  he  would 


"C.  O.,  5:1284,  Letter  from  Lord  Hillsborough  to  the  Proprietors  of 
Pennsylvania,  19  July,  1771. 

''Ibid.,  Letter  of  John  Penn  to  Hillsborough,  24  Dec,  1171.  Also  in 
C.  O.,  5  :1300. 


326  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

pay  him  lOs.  per  pipe  in  case  the  seizure  was  made.  When  the 
people  heard  this  they  were  incensed  and  threatened  Mr.  Swift 
himself,  who,  fearing  that  the  king's  money  might  be  in  danger, 
turned  over  to  the  cashier  of  the  port  £1,186  18^.  14c?.  sterling, 
endorsed  by  Mr.  Meredith,  the  wealthiest  merchant  in  Phil- 
adelphia. Supposing  that  the  facts  in  this  case  were  true,  and 
there  is  every  probability  that  they  were,  several  deductions  might 
be  drawn  from  them  in  the  light  of  the  correspondence  just  men- 
tioned. In  the  first  place,  it  is  evident  that  there  was  consider- 
able friction  between  the  customs  officials  and  the  people  as  well 
as  the  traders.  Secondly,  when  a  case  came  up  which  was  so 
obvious  that  the  collector  could  scarcely  let  it  pass  and  maintain 
even  the  appearance  of  doing  his  duty,  the  results  were  so  pain- 
ful that  there  was  little  incentive  to  repeat  the  effort.  Duncan 
Stuart  was  thoroughly  justified  when  he  said,  "If  I  make  a  seiz- 
ure the  stores  are  broken  open,  the  goods  are  taken  away,  and 
woe  to  him  that  would  make  a  discovery."  Thirdly,  when  such  a 
case  came  up  and  outrages  were  committed,  the  governor  passed 
over  the  incident  in  his  reports  as  of  little  importance  and  said 
that  his  people  were  free  from  any  "illegalities"  and  "offered  no 
obstructions  to  trade. "^^ 

A  case  arose,  between  1770  and  1772,  which  is  illustrative  of 
the  difficulties  experienced  by  the  collectors  when  they  attempted 
to  make  seizures. ■**^  John  Hatton  was  the  collector  at  Salem  and 
Cohensey  in  1770.  It  was  actually  known  by  him  that  ships  were 
arriving,  and  that  pilot  boats  were  unloading,  and  secreting  con- 
traband goods,  before  the  vessels  made  a  formal  entry.  Every 
attempt  to  make  a  seizure  was  met  with  violence,  and  he  received 
no  assistance  from  the  officers  and  magistrates,  who  were  them- 
selves helpers,  because  the  people  sanctioned  the  smuggling.  On 
one  occasion,  the  8th  of  November,  1770,  Hatton  seized  a  pilot 
boat  off  Cape  May,  which  was  laden  with  contraband  goods  from 


="•  T.,  I,  471,  24  Oct.,  1769. 

^'The  Case  of  John  Hatton.     T.,  482,  Dec.  25,  1770;  T.,  491,  Jan.  17, 
1771. 


Trade  of  the;  Delaware:  District  327 

the  Prince  of  Wales.  While  doing  this  he  was  violently  assaulted 
by  a  number  of  armed  men  from  the  Prince  of  Wales,  who  took 
the  pilot  boat  out  of  his  possession  and  robbed  and  dangerously 
wounded  him,  his  son,  and  others  on  board  with  him.^^  His 
slave  was  taken  prisoner  and  a  little  later,  on  land,  his  son  was 
asaulted  a  second  time,  when,  in  company  with  the  son  of  John 
Swift,  he  was  attempting  to  find  the  pilot  boat.^2  Hatton  pro- 
tested to  the  governor  of  New  Jersey,  and  a  month  later  wrote  to 
the  commissioners  of  the  customs  at  Boston  that  he  had  been  most 
basely  treated  while  performing  his  duty.  He  also  said  that  he 
was  well  informed  that  a  set  of  merchants  at  Philadelphia  had 
given  a  considerable  amount  of  money  to  officers  of  the  province, 
in  order  to  gain  any  point  they  wished,  and  that  they  had  made 
the  Cape  their  "staunch  store"  for  contraband  goods. 

Although  the  governor  issued  a  proclamation  for  the  arrest  of 
the  nine  men  who  were  supposed  to  be  involved  in  the  afifair, 
nothing  was  really  accomplished.  One  of  the  principal  offenders, 
a  man  by  the  name  of  Hughes,  was  imprisoned,  but,  owing  to  the 
fact  that  he  was  a  nephew  of  one  of  the  justices,  he  was  almost 
immediately  released  on  bail.  On  the  whole,  the  proclamation 
was  a  very  perfunctory  proceeding  on  the  part  of  the  governor, 
who  did  all  he  could  a  little  later  to  injure  Hatton  in  a  communi- 
cation to  the  board  of  customs  at  Boston.  On  the  10th  of  April, 
1771,  he  wrote  that  Hatton  had  a  violent  temper,  was  arrogant, 
and  threatened  to  make  unfavorable  reports  of  officers  who  did 
not  strictly  obey  his  instructions. ■^^  He  charged  him  with  com- 
plicity with  the  worst  smugglers  in  Philadelphia,  saying  that  no 
doubt  Mr.  Hatton  would  have  made  no  mention  of  illicit  trade  if 
the  seamen  had  offered  him  money.  The  governor  said  that  Hat- 
ton had  been  "guilty  of  unwarranted  practices  in  his  office  and 
had  given  encouragement  and  assistance  to  the  most  noted  smug- 
glers to  a  great  detriment  of  the  king's  revenues,  notwithstanding 
which  you  have  suffered  him  to  continue  in  office  and  have  not, 


"T., 

I,  491, 

17  Jan.,  1771. 

<2  rr\ 

I,  476. 

*^T., 

I,  491, 

10  April,  1771. 

328  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

at  least  as  I  can  learn,  even  shown  any  marks  of  your  disapproba- 
tion of  his  conduct.  Had  I  not  known  that  the  inspector  general, 
after  a  strict  examination  into  the  matter,  had  made  such  a  report 
to  you,  I  should  myself  have  suspended  Hatton  from  acting  in  his 
office  till  further  orders  from  proper  authority.  But  as  you  were 
made  fully  acquainted  with  his  conduct  and  it  was  a  matter  over 
which  you  had  particular  superintendency,  I  was  unwilling  to 
interfere,  more  especially  as  I  had  a  right  to  expect  that  you 
would  have  thought  yourself  in  duty  bound  after  receiving  such 
information  to  remove  him  from  his  office  in  the  customs."'*^ 

No  aid  whatever  was  given  in  the  Prince  of  Wales  case  by 
the  collectors  in  the  other  ports  of  the  district.  Mr.  Hatton  com- 
plained that  the  collector  at  Burlington,  Mr.  Read,  always  inter- 
fered with  the  exercise  of  his  duties.  Since  Read  was  one  of  the 
three  chief  justices  of  the  province,  for  which  position  he  received 
a  salary  from  the  assembly,  it  was  more  to  his  interest  to  consider 
the  wishes  of  the  people  than  to  perform  his  duty  as  collector. 
The  officers  at  Philadelphia  excused  themselves  by  saying  that 
it  seemed  none  of  their  business,  since  the  vessel  had  a  proper 
clearance  and  entry.  An  entry  had  been  made  at  Philadelphia  on 
the  10th  of  November  that  Brennen  and  Postlethwaite  had  shipped 
7,188  bushels  of  white  salt  and  24  chaldrons  of  coal  from  Liver- 
pool to  Philadelphia  in  the  Prince  of  Wales.^^ 

The  case  came  up  again  and  again.  It  was  discussed  in  the 
several  courts  and  ordered  out  of  first  one  and  then  another.  Mr. 
Kemper,  one  of  the  judges  of  the  civil  courts,  said  that  it  was  a 
matter  of  prudence  rather  than  of  law  as  to  how  far  he  should 
proceed.  Andrew  Allen,  the  attorney-general  of  Pennsylvania, 
decided  that  the  case  could  not  be  tried  in  the  ordinary  courts 
except  on  the  grounds  of  personal  injury.  In  that  capacity  re- 
dress from  one  or  all  the  offenders  could  be  obtained.  He  also 
pointed  out  difficulties  in  bringing  the  case  up  in  the  vice-ad- 
miralty courts.  So  far  as  breaches  of  the  laws  of  trade  were 
concerned,  they  could  undoubtedly  be  tried  in  that  court,  but  only 


"  Ibid. 

"  T.,  I,  476. 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  329 

if  suit  were  brought  within  the  year.  As  it  was  then  the  28th  of 
October,  1771,  there  was  Httle  time  before  the  expiration  of  the 
year.  As  to  the  damages,  he  said  "The  different  judges  that  have 
for  many  years  past  presided  in  the  courts  of  the  vice-admiralty 
here,  who  have  also  been  gentlemen  of  high  repute  in  law,  have 
invariably  laid  it  down  as  a  rule  not  to  determine  any  suit,  which 
have  sounded  merely  in  damages  without  calling  in  the  assistance 
of  a  jury  to  ascertain  the  quantum  of  damages. "^"^ 

The  result  was  that  Hatton  did  not  succeed  in  winning  a  single 
point.  It  is  little  wonder  that  few  cases  came  up  in  these  courts, 
when  one  so  obvious  as  this,  with  the  facts  not  disproved,  could 
do  nothing  more  than  bring  odium  upon  the  collector.  In  the 
reform  of  the  vice-admiralty  it  was  expressly  stipulated  that  it 
should  have  complete  jurisdiction  over  all  matters  concerning 
seizures,  and  it  was  contrary  to  the  purpose  of  the  reform  that 
there  should  be  any  difficulty  in  obtaining  a  hearing.  Instead  of 
hearing  fewer  cases  it  was  supposed  to  have  cognizance  over 
more. 

The  chief  reason  for  this  state  of  affairs  was  again  the  lack 
of  salaries.  The  officers  below  the  judge  in  each  court  were  com- 
pelled to  engage  in  other  pursuits,  and  thus  they  were  dependent 
upon  the  people.  This  defect  was  particularly  noticeable  after 
the  discontent  in  the  colonies  became  so  marked.  The  officers  did 
not  dare  to  consider  cases  contrary  to  the  wishes  of  the  people, 
upon  whom  they  were  dependent  for  their  livelihood.  Richard 
Reeves,  one  of  the  commissioners  at  Boston,  wrote  on  the  25th  of 
August,  1772,  to  John  Robinson,  a  member  of  the  London  cus- 
toms board,  concerning  the  apathetic  condition  of  the  vice-ad- 
miralty court  in  the  Delaware  district.  He  said  that  the  attorney- 
general  of  Pennsylvania  had  refused  to  undertake  any  prosecu- 
cutions  for  penalties  incurred  by  persons  aiding  in  the  running  of 
goods,  and  that  there  was  neither  solicitor  nor  advocate  general 
in  Philadelphia.  In  order  to  explain  the  position  of  the  attorney- 
general,  he  inclosed  a  letter  from  the  collector  of  Philadelphia, 
dated  the  7th  of  the  preceding  June:     "Upon  several  seizures 

"T.,  I,  471. 


330  Smith  Colle;ge;  Studie;s  in  History 

lately  made  here  we  have  frequently  applied  to  the  attorney  gen- 
eral to  prosecute  for  penalties  incurred,  and  on  finding  his  neg- 
lect therein,  we  thought  proper  to  demand  of  him  a  reason,  and 
his  direct  answer  whether  or  not  he  would  do  it,  to  which  he  has 
replied  (after  taking  a  long  time  to  consider  it)  that,  as  he  had 
no  salary  from  the  crown  to  make  him  independent,  he  could  by 
no  means  undertake  any  prosecutions  of  that  kind  which  would 
injure  him  greatly  in  his  business  as  a  lawyer,  and  therefore  he 
must  beg  leave  to  decline  it.  We  are  informed  that  all  the  law- 
yers here  have  combined  not  to  undertake  any  of  the  like  prosecu- 
tions. Indeed  we  have  been  told,  whoever  did,  would  meet  a 
worse  fate  than  ever  the  informers  have  done.  This  being  the 
case,  we  hope  the  board  will  not  impute  it  to  any  neglect  of  duty 
or  inattention  to  their  commands  that  those  prosecutions  have  not 
been  instituted."'*^ 

This  letter  is  sufficient  to  show  that  only  a  few  of  the  many 
cases  of  smuggling  ever  reached  the  vice-admiralty  court.  As  an 
example  of  their  decision  upon  cases  which  did  come  up,  that  of 
the  sloop  Riihy  may  be  given.  On  the  30th  of  July,  1772,  the  col- 
lector and  the  comptroller  informed  the  board  that  they  had  made 
a  seizure  of  the  Ruby  from  Cape  Nicola  Mole,  for  trading  with- 
out a  register.  The  sloop  contained  134  casks  of  molasses  from 
Hispaniola,  worth  16c?.  per  gallon,  or  £999  Ss.  Ad.  The  vessel  was 
navigated  chiefly  by  foreigners  and  the  property  itself  was  for- 
eign. About  a  month  later,  the  collector  and  the  comptroller  is- 
sued a  writ  of  delivery  for  the  vessel  and  goods. ^^  As  instances 
of  this  kind  had  happened  many  times,  and  as  such  practices  (ex- 
cept cases  allowed  by  14  Chas.  II,  ch.  II,  sec.  30)  were  very  detri- 
mental to  the  revenue  and  a  great  discouragement  to  the  officer, 
it  was  thought  that  the  case  was  of  prime  importance. 

The  case  came  up  in  the  court  of  vice-admiralty  and  was  prose- 
cuted by  James  Biddle,  the  deputy  judge  of  the  court.  The  ver- 
dict went  against  the  officers  of  the  customs,  and  the  sloop  with 


"  T.,   I,   491,   Letter   of   Richard   Reeves   to   John   Robinson,   25    Aug., 
1772  with  enclosure. 

'^  Ibid.,  Letter  of  Richard  Reeves.     17  Sept.,  1772. 


Trade  of  the;  Delaware  District  331 

her  cargo  was  returned  to  the  owner,  Emmanuel  Roderick.  The 
collector  and  the  comptroller  objected  strenuously  to  the  decision 
but  with  no  avail.  This  Emmanuel  Roderick  claimed  to  be  a  resi- 
dent of  Rhode  Island,  but  it  could  not  be  proved  that  he  had  been 
naturalized.  He  said  that  he  took  a  cargo  to  Hispaniola  in  a  ves- 
sel called  the  Hopestill,  which  was  entirely  owned  by  him,  was 
English  manned,  and  was  built  in  Rhode  Island.  In  return  for 
the  cargo  he  purchased  from  this  island  134  casks  of  molasses. 
Before  his  return  he  discovered  at  the  port  of  Limberg  in  the 
same  island  that  his  vessel  would  not  stand  a  return  voyage.  He 
then  sold  it  much  to  his  loss,  and  waited  for  an  English  vessel, 
but  as  no  English  vessel  came  and  he  was  afraid  that  his  molasses 
would  spoil,  he  finally  bought  the  sloop  Ruby  which  had  been 
built  and  registered  in  Virginia,  although  the  register  was  lost. 
As  many  of  his  seamen  had  left  the  island,  only  the  master  and  a 
few  negroes  being  left,  and  as  no  Englishmen  were  available,  he 
was  obliged  to  man  the  sloop  with  foreigners.  He  had  no  in- 
tention of  smuggling,  but  meant  to  explain  all  of  this  at  Philadel- 
phia, obtain  a  new  register  for  the  sloop,  and  pay  the  duty  on 
foreign  molasses. ^^ 

Roderick's  defense  is  plausible,  but  extremely  improbable.  At 
a  time  when  almost  every  other  man  was  a  smuggler  or  interested 
in  smuggling,  it  would  be  necessary  to  prove  more  conclusively 
every  part  of  his  story  than  to  have  his  oath.  He  knew  what 
risks  were  involved  and  should  have  been  willing  to  suffer  the 
consequences.  If  such  instances  were  allowed  to  go  unpunished, 
it  was  impossible  to  put  any  effective  check  upon  illicit  trade.  The 
case  is  particularly  suspicious  in  that  the  vessel  came  from  His- 
paniola. This  island,  especially  Cape  Nicola  Mole,  was,  as  in  the 
earlier  period,  a  notorious  smuggling  center.  Almost  every  ves- 
sel, which  went  to  Jamaica  laden  with  provisions  and  lumber, 
cleared  for  Cape  Nicola  Mole  to  purchase  a  cargo  of  sugar,  coffee 
and  molasses,  with  the  money  which  they  received  from  the  Ja- 
maica merchants.     It  was  also  one  of  the  bases  for  European 


^'' T.,  I,  491,  10  Aug.,  Claim  and  Answer  of  Emmanuel  Roderick. 

7 


332  Smith  College;  Studies  in  History 

manufactured  goods  during  the  time  when  merchants  were  at- 
tempting to  do  without  manufactures  imported  via  England.^" 

In  fact,  in  every  route  the  regulations  and  laws  were  increas- 
ingly disregarded.  Trade  continued,  as  before,  to  follow  the 
natural  channel,  and  for  all  practical  purposes  this  district  en- 
joyed free  trade.  This  condition  of  affairs  was  clearly  brought 
out  in  a  report  on  a  bill  for  regulating  the  trade  in  North  Am- 
erica in  1773.  It  was  urged  that  greater  care  should  be  taken  to 
compel  owners  of  provincial  built  ships  to  register  them,  to  com- 
pel vessels  to  be  brought  into  port  for  examination  and  to  require 
greater  discrimination  in  seizures  on  the  part  of  the  officers,  so 
that  the  fair  trader  would  not  be  discouraged.  In  the  latter  part 
of  the  report,  however,  which  stated  the  grievances  of  the  offi- 
cers, the  reasons  why  the  trade  legislation  had  been  such  a  fail- 
ure are  fully  explained.  The  officers  complained,  (1)  that  the 
heavy  charges  of  the  provincial  courts  of  the  admiralty  kept  many 
cases  from  being  tried,  the  expense  of  prosecution  of  petty  seiz- 
ures often  being  a  greater  charge  than  the  goods;  (2)  that  com- 
bination among  the  people  prevented  the  sale  of  goods  which  were 
seized,  in  order  that  the  smuggler  could  buy  them  in  again  at  a 
low  rate;  (3)  that  there  were  very  few  crown  lawyers  in  some 
ports,  and  that  little  assistance  was  given  by  those  who  were  there, 
because  they  had  no  salaries. 


'"C.    O.,   5:119,   6   May,    1773,    Letter    from    G.    B.    Rodney  to    Phillip 
Stephens. 


CONCLUSION 

There  is  little  doubt  that  the  legislation  which  has  been  dis- 
cussed was  an  economic  necessity  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
empire,  but  it  is  equally  true  that  it  was  economically  untenable 
in  the  Delaware  district.  As  has  been  pointed  out,  the  trade  of 
this  district  depended  upon  circuitous  routes  which  were  prac- 
tically forbidden  by  the  "enumerated  policy."  In  order  to  carry 
on  trade  with  any  advantage  after  the  enactment  of  the  legislation, 
the  merchants  and  traders  were  compelled  to  resort  to  illegal 
methods  on  a  much  larger  scale  than  ever  before.  This  was, 
however,  not  a  protest  against  protection  per  se,  because  the  dis- 
trict itself  was  committed  to  that  principle.  It  was  merely  a  pro- 
test against  this  particular  form  of  imperial  protection.  As  the 
political  controversies  superseded  the  economic,  illicit  trade  was 
condoned  by  all  except  the  few  appointees  who  were  financially 
interested  in  enforcing  the  law.  The  result  was  that  the  authority 
of  the  vice-admiralty  courts  and  custom  houses  of  the  district  was 
completely  nullified,  and  such  conditions  of  free  trade  existed  as 
to  make  the  period  for  the  individual  traders  more  prosperous 
than  any  previous  one.  On  the  other  hand,  the  British  govern- 
ment had  expended  large  sums  to  reorganize  the  protective  sys- 
tem with  the  expectation  of  increasing  the  revenue  by  more  ade- 
quate restrictions.  When,  therefore,  the  regulations  became  in- 
effectual through  illicit  trade,  the  government's  loss  of  revenue 
was  tremendous,  and  the  increased  expenditure  for  equipment 
proved  to  be  a  worthless  experiment.  Compelled  to  yield  one 
point  after  another,  the  government  finally  realized  that  it  would 
have  to  abandon  the  protective  policy  altogether,  or  enforce  its 
laws  by  militant  methods. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


MANUSCRIPTS 

A.     Public  Record  Office,  London,  England. 
I.     Admiralty  Office  Papers. 

a.  Class  I.     In  Letters. 

1.  Letters  from  the  British  Consuls,  Bundle  3837. 

2.  Letters  from  the  Custom  House,  Bundle  3866. 

b.  Class  IL     Out  Letters. 

1.     Letters    relating    to    the    Admiralty    and    Vice- 
Admiralty  courts,  Bundle  1057. 

IL     Audit  Office  Papers. 

a.     Accounts  Various,  Bundle  1391. 

III.     Chatham  Papers,  Bundles  97  and  343. 

VI.     Colonial  Office  Papers. 

a.  Class  V.     Original  Documents,   Bundles   38:67;    112:- 

221:511;  573;  710;  851;  1133;  1228*;  1233*;  1263*; 
1265*-1268*;  1270*;  1273*;  1275*;  1277*;  1280*; 
1284*;  1288*-1292;  1299*;  1300*;  1499*. 

b.  Class    XXXIII.      Shipping    Returns    from    Barbadoes, 

Bundle   17. 

c.  Class    LXXVI.      Shipping    Returns    from    Dominica, 

Bundle  4. 

d.  Class     CXLII.       Shipping     Returns     from     Jamaica, 

Bundle  19. 

e.  Class  CCCXC.    Board  of  Trade  Commercial  1688-1792, 

Bundle  5. 

f.  Class   CCCXC.     Board  of  Trade  Journal,   Bundle   10. 

V.     Custom  House  Papers. 

a.  Custom  House  Series. 

1.     Accounts. 

(a)     Ledger  of  Imports  and  Exports,  1764- 
1765. 

b.  Custom  House  Miscellanea,  16. 

VI.     Domestic  State  Papers. 

a.     Entry  Book  Classified,  Book  140. 

VII.     Pipe  Office  Papers. 

a.     Declared  Accounts. 

1.     Customs,   1765-1770.     Rolls,   1264-1265. 

VIII.     Treasury  Board  Papers. 

a.  Class  I.  In  Letters.  Original  Correspondence,  Bun- 
dles, 351;  399;  400;  451;  462;  463;  471;  476;  482; 
491. 


*  Some  of  the  references  to  these  bundles  were  among  the  extracts 
made  by  Mr.  G.  L.  Beer. 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  335 

b.  Class  II.     Out  Letters. 

1.  Customs,  Vols.  27,  28. 

2.  Various  XVIII,  Vol.  I. 

c.  Class    VII.      Miscellanea    Various — Shipping    Returns, 

Bundle  45. 

IX.     Treasury  Solicitor  Papers. 

a.  State  of  the  question  between  the  Treasury  and  the 
East  India  Company  respecting  the  tea-duties, 
Bundle  3321. 

B.  Custom  House,  London. 

I.     Custom    House    Establishment    Books,    Sept.   8,    1767,   Jan.    5, 
1776.    29  Vols. 

C.  House  of  Lords,  London. 

I.     House  of  Lords  Mss.     Collection  dated   1763-1775. 

D.  British  Aluseum,  London. 

I.    Additional  Mss.  15,484,  33,030  and  37,021. 

E.  Friends  Reference  Library,  London. 

I.     Collection  of  Mss.  4 — Letters  to  and  from  Philadelphia,  1757. 

F.  Pennsylvania  Historical  Society,   Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania. 

I.  Custom  House  Papers,  1704-1713. 

II.  Society  of  Collection — Letters  of  Merchants. 

III.  Penn.  Letter  Book  IX. 

IV.  Penn.  Mss.,  Vol.  X. 

V.     Pennsylvania  Historical  Society  Mss. 

PRINTED   SOURCES 

A.    Records. 

I.  Charter  of  William  Penn  and  Laws  of  the  Province  of  Penn- 
sylvania from  1682-1700.  Published  by  J.  B.  Linn,  Harris- 
burg,  Pennsylvania,  1879. 

II.     Colonial  Records  of  Pennsylvania. 

16  Vols.  ed.  by  Samuel  Hazard,  Philadelphia,  1852. 

III.  Documents  relative  to  the  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  VII. 

11  Vols.  ed.   by  E.   B.   O'Callaghan,   xMbany,   New  York, 

1856. 

IV.  Pennsylvania  Archives. 

1st  Series.     12  Vols.  ed.  by  Samuel  Hazard,  Philadelphia, 

1852-1907. 
2d  Series.     19  Vols.  ed.  by  W.  H.  Egle  and  J.  B.  Linn, 

Harrisburg,  1874-93. 
3d  Series.     30  Vols.  ed.  by  W.  H.  Egle  and  G.  E.  Read, 

1897-1898. 
4th  Series.     12  Vols.  ed.  by  G.  E.  Read,  Harrisburg,  Pa., 

1900. 

V.  Statutes  of  the  Realm  to  1713. 

12  Vols.     London,   1810-1828. 
VI.     (British)    Statutes  at  Large. 

109  Vols.  ed.  by  Danby  Pickering,  London,  1762. 


336  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

VII.     Statutes  of  Pennsylvania  at  Large. 

14  Vols.  ed.  by  J.  T.  Mitchell  and  Henry  Flanders,  Harris- 
burg,   Pa.,   1896-1910. 
VIII.     Votes  and   Proceedings  of   the  House  of   Representatives  of 
Pennsylvania,  Vol.  III. 
6  Vols.     Philadelphia,   1752-1776. 

B.  General  Works. 

I.  Chalmers,  George,  Introduction  to  the  Revolt  of  the  Colonies. 

2  Vols.     Boston,  1845. 

II.  De  Bow,  J.  D.  B.,  The  Industrial  Review  of  the  Southern  and 

Western  States. 

3  Vols.     New  Orleans,  1852-3. 

III.  Ford,   P.   L.,  Writings   of  John  Dickinson.      (The   Historical 

Society   of    Pennsylvania   Memoirs.     Vol.    XIV.)      Phila- 
delphia, 1895. 

IV.  Macpherson,    David,    Annals    of    Commerce,    Manufactures, 

Fisheries,  and  Navigation,  with  brief  notices  of  the  arts 
and  sciences  connected  with  them. 
3  Vols.     London,  1805. 
V.     Pitkins,  Timothy,  A  Statistical  View  of  the  Commerce  of  the 
United  States  of  America. 
New  York,  1817. 
VI.     Smyth,  A.  H.  (Editor),  Writings  of  Benjamin  Franklin. 
10  Vols.     New  York,  1905. 

C.  Pamphlets.* 

I.     Bernard,  Governor,  Select  Letters  on  the  Trade  and  Govern- 
ment of  America.     Boston,  1774. 

II.  Pownall,  Thomas,  Administration  of  the  Colonies.     London, 

1768. 

in.  Smith,  William,  A  Brief  State  of  the  Province  of  Pennsyl- 
vania in  1755.     New  York,  1764. 

IV.  Anonymous,  Observations  of  the  Merchants  at  Boston  on  the 
Several  Acts  of  Parliament  respecting  American  Com- 
merce and  Revenue.     Boston,  1770. 

D.  Newspapers  and  Magazines. 

I.     The  Annual  Register.     Vol.  VIII. 
158  Vols.     London,  1758-1914. 
II.     Pennsylvania  Magazine  of  History.     Vol.  IV. 

Edited  by  the  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania. 
38  Vols.     Philadelphia,  1877-1914. 

III.  Pennsylvania  Gazette. 

Edited  by  Benjamin  Franklin,  Philadelphia,  1729-1766. 


*A  splendid  collection  of  pamphlets  may  be  fonud  in  All  Souls 
Library,  Oxford,  England,  where  there  are  thirteen  volumes  of  the  most 
important  pamphlets  written  between  1760-1776. 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  2)2>7 

IV.     Broadsides.     (Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania.) 
A.  B.  I.,  No.  129. 

SECONDARY  WORKS 

A.  General  Histories. 

I.     Hanna,  C.  A.,  The  Wilderness  Trail.    2  Vols.  New  York,  1911. 
n.     Madison,  James,  Letters  and  Other  Writings.  New  York,  1889. 
HI.     Osgood,   Herbert   L.,   The   American   Colonies   in  the   Seven- 
teenth Century.     3  Vols.     New  York,   1904-7. 
IV.     Rossiter,    William,    A    Century   of    Population.      Philadelphia, 
1894. 
V.     Swank,  James  Moore,  History  of  the   Manufacture  of   Iron 
in   all   Ages   and  particularly  in   the  United   States    from 
Colonial  Times  to  1891.    Philadelphia,  1892. 

B.  Monographs. 

I.     Bagnall,  W.  R.,  The  Textile  Industries  of  the  United  States. 
2  Vols.    Cambridge,  1893. 
II.     Bean,  Theodore  W.,  History  of  Montgomery  County.     Phila- 
delphia, 1884. 

III.  Beer,  G.  L., 

a.  The  Commercial  Policy  of  England  towards  the  Ameri- 

can Colonies. 

Columbia  University  Studies  III,  No.  2. 

b.  British  Colonial  Policy,  1754-1765. 

New  York,   1907. 

c.  The  Origins  of  the  British  Colonial  System,  1578-1660. 

New  York,  1908. 

d.  The  Old  Colonial  System.     Part  I. 

2  Vols.     New  York,  1912. 

IV.  Bishop,   J.   L.,   A   History   of   American   Manufactures    from 

1608-1860. 

2  Vols.     Philadelphia,  1861-1864. 

V.     Giesecke,    A.    A.,    American    Commercial    Legislation    before 
1789. 
Philadelphia,  1910. 

VI.  Goss,  John  Dean,  The  First  Stages  of  the  Tariff  Policy  of 
the  United  States  from  Colonial  Times  to  the  McKinley 
Administration  Bill. 

Columbia  University  Studies   in  History,   Economics  and 
Politics.     Vol.  I.,  No.  2.     New  York,  1891. 
VII.     Lincoln,    C.    H.,    The    Revolutionary    Movement    in    Pennsyl- 
vania.    University   of    Pennsylvania.      Philadelphia,    1901. 
VIII.     Lord,   E.  L.,   Industrial   Experiments   in  the   British   Colonies 
of   North  America.      (Johns   Hopkins   University   Press.) 
Baltimore,  1898. 

C.     Articles. 

I.     Andrews,   C.  M.,   Colonial  Commerce.      (The  American  His- 
torical Review,  Vol.  XX,  pp.  43-63.)     New  York,  1915. 


338  Smith  College  Studies  in  History 

II.     Farrand.  M.,  The  Taxation  of  Tea,  1767-1773.     (The  Ameri- 
can Historical  Review,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  266-269). 
New  York,  1898. 

III.  Fisher,    W.    C,    American    Trade    Regulations    before    1789. 

(Papers    of    the    American    Historical    Association,    Vol. 
Ill,  pp.  223-249.) 
New  York,  1889. 

IV.  Smith,  W.  R.,  Sectionalism  in  Pennsylvania  during  the  Revo- 

lution.    (Political  Science  Quarterly,  Vol.  XXIV,  pp.  208- 
235.) 

New  York. 
V.     Taylor,    Thomas    B.,    The    Philadelphia    Counterpart    of    the 
Boston  Tea  Party.     (Friends'  Historical  Society  Bulletins 
Nos.  2  and  3.)      Philadelphia,  1913. 
'     VI.     Morriss,    U.    S.,      Colonial    Trade    of    Maryland,    1689-1715. 
(Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  Series  XXXII.) 
Baltimore,  1914. 
VII.     Root,  W.  T.,  The  Relations  of  Pennsylvania  with  the  British 
Government,  1696-1765. 
Philadelphia,  1912. 

MAPS 

A.  Eshleman,  H.  Frank.  Map  of  the  Earliest  Highways  leading  from  the 

Delaware  and  Schuylkill  Rivers  to  the  Susquehannah  River  and 
its  branches.     Lancaster,  Pa.,  1907. 

B.  SchuU,  Nicholas,  Map  of  Pennsylvania,  1759.     Pennsylvania  Archives, 

3rd  Series,  App.  I-IX. 

C.  Scull,  William,  Map  of  Pennsylvania,  1770.    Ibid. 

CALENDARS 

A.  Andrews,   C.   M.,   and   Davenport,   Frances   G.,   Guide   to  the  Manu- 

script  Materials   for  the  History  of  the  United   States  to   1783, 
in  the  British  Museum,  in  Minor  London  Archives,  and  in  the 
Libraries  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge. 
Washington,  D.  C,  1908. 

B.  Andrews,   C.   M.,   Guide  to  the   Materials   for  American   History  to 

1783  in  the  Public  Record  Office  of  Great  Britain. 
2  Vols.    Washington,  D.  C,  1912-1914. 


APPENDICES 


APPENDIX  I 


An  account  of  goods  and  merchandise  imported 
Pennsylvania  from  Christmas  1699  to  Christmas  1700 

Quantity 
Cwt.  Quarter  Lbs. 

Grocery — 

Ginger  dry   2 

Molasses   177 

Rice    7 

Sugar   Brown    4 

Indigo    

Skins — 

Bear,  black  

Beaver     

Buck  in  hair   

Cat    

Elk    

Fisher    

Fox     

Mink    

Musquash    

Otter    

Raccoon     

Wolf     

Braziletto    5 

Tobacco 

Whale  fins   5 

At  Value- 
Cow  horns   

Buck  skins   


into   England   from 


Customs 


iO 


Us.       Od. 


1        13 

11 

4 

2 

3          5 

13 

7 

.       130 

1 

6 

7 

.      452 

64 

2 

7 

.      121 

5 

14 

5 

.      516 

9 

3 

1 

.      826 

2 

6 

10 

14 

19 

11 

96 

3 

8 

1 

.     1322 

12 

10 

4^ 

.      783 

8 

6 

8 

.     2163 

7 

13 

5 

.       116 

3 

2 

3 

.     4721 

16 

4 

6 

.      173 

26 

4 

6 

'.  64,791 

1414 

6 

6 

. 

7 

3 

VA 

7 

4% 

9 

16 

9J4 

*C.  O.  5:1291.     This  list  was  signed,  Walter  Cox. 


APPENDIX  II 

EXPORTS  FROM  PENNSYLVANIA  TO  LONDON   IN  ENGLISH 

SHIPS,    1764-1765* 


Amount 

Merchandise               Tons  Cwt. 

Qtr.    Lbs. 

Estimat 

Ashes   Pott 

7,989 

At  3d.   lb. 

Copper    Ore 113 

3      24 

At  2/6  cwt. 

Castoreum     

..       11 

At  4-6.y.  lb. 

Cort'x  Elutheria     . .     25 

2      27 

At  28-32J.  lb 

Winteranus 

. .  8,980 

At  2-3d.  lb. 

Gum    Copal 

..     393 

At  9-nd.  lb 

£99 

\7s. 

3d 

14 

4 

9 

2 

15 

38 

12 

6 

93 

10 

10 

24 

10 

2 

*  Customs,  III,  65. 


340 


Smith  College  Studies  in  History 


Amount 
Merchandise  Tons  Cwt.  Qtr 

Oyl    Chymical . . 

Sassafras     

Rad.  Serp'ntaria 

Sarsaparilla    . .  . 

Sperma    Cati 50 

Sassafras    2 

Turpentine      875 

Elephants  Teeth     . .       3 

Groc.    Pimento. 

Rice    1171 

Indigo     

Iron    Bar 54     19 

Pig   Iron 170     17 

Oil    Train 94      2 

Pitch  and  Tar..  210  lasts 

Rozin    12 

Skins  : 

Bear,   Black..        1,178 

Beaver     81 

Pelts   1,382 

Buck,  deer  hair     10,397 

Calabor    

Cat    1,480 

Coney   14 

Deer    208 

Elk  n 

Fisher  252 

Fox,  Ord'y  ..        1,802 
Martin    143 


Lbs. 

203 

19 

130 

150 


Estimated  first  cost  or  value 


2 
1 


10 

2 

. .  1,479 

3      21 

. .  2,500 

2        9 

8 

32  gals. 

7  bbls. 

2 


No. 


Nos. 

lb. 

No. 


Mink     10,848 


Musquash    . . . 

Otter     

Panther    

Raccoon     .... 

Wolf     

Spirits,    Rum  . . 

Sturgeon     

Wax,  Bees  .... 
Whale  Fins.... 
Wine,  Madeira 
Boat  Boards... 
Brazielletto  . .  . 
Cedar    Planks.. 

Fustick     

Oak    Planks.... 

Logwood     

Mahogany     .... 

Plank 

Pine    Boards    . . 

Walnut    


9.258 
2,439 
2 
2,428 
81 
2,894  Gals. 
214  Kegs 
180  cwt.  1  gr.    4  et. 
5  cwt.  3  gr.  12  et. 

64  tons  3:11 
13,000  Feet 
3  Tons 
35  No. 
94  Tons 
65,000  Feet 
184  Tons 

5  Tons 
509  No. 

6  No. 
305  Logs 


At  4-6.y.  lb.  50 

At  6-8.y.  cwt. 
At  2-3.y.  lb.  16 

At  \\-\M.  lb.  7 

At  5-8£  lOd.  cwt.  7 

At  6-8j.  cwt. 
At  9-ll.y.  cwt.  437 

At  4/10-7i  cwt.  18 

At  ^-Id.  lb.  36 

At  14-18.y.  cwt.  937 

At  12-18rf.  lb.  156 

At  9/10-10£  10.f.  ton 
At  18-22.?.  ton 
At  ll-13i  ton 
At  8-10£  last 
At  8-lO.y.  cwt. 


At  6-7^. 
At  3-4.f. 
At  20-40.?. 
At  2-2>s. 


100  No. 


At  2 

At  10-14d.  Doz. 

At  12-18 

At  6-7.?. 

At  6-8(/. 

At  14-6d. 

At  7-9rf. 

At  20-21(f. 

At  5-7d. 

At  3-4.?. 

At  20.?. 

At  5-7d. 

At  4-6 

At  20d.  Gall. 

At  3-4j.  Keg 

At  45-55.?.  cwt. 

At  7-9£  cwt. 

At  19-23£  Ton 

At  \d. 

At  .6-8£  Ton 

At  5.?. 

At  8-10£  Ton 

At  2d. 

At  10-14i 

At  7-9£ 

At  20.?. 

At  30.?. 

At  20j. 


170 

1,135 

1,895 

5 

36 
14 

1,299 

3 

12 

13 

25 

7 

112 

4 

994 

231 

426 

2 

60 

20 

241 

37 

450 

46 

1,360 

54 

21 


846 

541 

2,220 

40 

509 

9 

305 


15 

1 

5 
10 

0 
14 
15 
15 
19 
11 

5 

17 

10 

5 

12 

16 

3 

12 
1 
6 

14 

0 

7 

12 

15 

8 

9 

16 

0 

14 

5 

3 

9 

18 

17 

13 

3 


8      15 


13 


11 
9 
6 


1 

4 

0 

16 

3 
6 

6 
8 
8 


6 
0 
6 
4 
0 
0 
6 
0 
0 
0 
4 
0 
9 
1 
4 
4 


Trade  of  the  Delaware  District  341 


Amount 
Merchandise  Tons  Cwt.  Qtr.    Lbs.  Estimated  first  cost  or  value 

Pipe    306:3:15  No.       At  14-16.y.  430  3          1 

Staves     306  cwt.  3  gr.  15  No.  At  16-8.y.  107  8          1 

Pink   Roots  ....            83  lbs.  753 

Sails  made   ....            48  Ells  3 

Total 16,042  4  1 

APPENDIX   III 

IMPORTS  TO  PENNSYLVANIA  FROM  LONDON,  1764-1765* 

Eng.  Manufacture                        Amount                                Cost  Amount  of  the  value 

Allom   17  cwt.                     At  2ls.  cwt.  £17  I7s.       Od. 

Apoth.  Ware   ....  417  cwt.                    At  40.y.  cwt.  834  0          0 

Apparel    Parcels..  11  No.                      At  20.y.  11  0          0 

Bags    217  doz.                    At  5-7.y.  doz.  65  2          0 

Beer    8  tons  3  hhds.  9  gal.  At  4-6£  Ton  43  18          6 

Books   119cwt.  Iqr.Olb.     At  3-5£  cwt.  477  0          0 

Brass  Wrought  ..  393  cwt.  0  qr.  20  lb.  At  4-5i  cwt.  1,769  6          0 

Bridles     1  doz.  At  8-14.y.   doz.  11  0 

Cards  new  Wool.  362  (895  doz.)         At  7-12^.  doz  171  19 

Cards  playing    ...  39  cwt.  3  qr.  0        At  20-25.f.  cwt.  44  14          4 

Chariots    5  No.                       At  15-25£  100  0         0 

Cheese    158  cwt.  0  qr.  0     At  20-28.y.   cwt.  189  12 

Coals    63                             At  22-26.y.  cwt.  75  12 

Cofifer  Wrought..  247  cwt.  2  qr.  0      At  5-5-12  cwt.  1,311  15 

Cordage   1,540 :0 :0                  At  20-26^.  cwt.  1,771 

Fustians     40  no.                       At  20s.  per  no.  40 

Gartering  Crewel.  50  Gross                   At   lOs.   gross.  25 

Glass    67,125  no.                At  5,100  per  no.  167  16          3 

Glass    Green    155  cwt.  0  qr.  5  Ib.At  10.y.  per  cwt.  77  10          5 

Glass  W.  Flint...  49  cwt.  2  qr.  221  lb.  At  20s.  per  cwt.  49  13        10 

Glass    Windows  . .  13  chests  At  14-25^.  chest.       13  0  0 

Gloves,   leather    . .  3,828  doz.                 At  4-8.y.  doz.  1,148  8 

Grindlestones     ...  40                               At  25-35.?.  60 

Gunpowder  297  cwt.  2qr.  5       At  3-3£  15  cwt.  1,064  4          2 

Haberdashery    ...  2,575  cwt.  1  qr.  0     At  40j.  cwt.  5,150  10 

Harness,  Coaches.  3  pairs  n.                At  40-60.?.  pair  7  10 
Hats : 

Beavers,  Castors  403  doz.                    At  3-5£  doz.  1,612 

Felt    1.293  3/4  doz.          At  20-25.y.  doz.  1,455  18          4 

Chip 140  doz.                   At  4-6s.  doz.  35  0          0 

Straw    40  doz.                      At   3-4/6  doz.  7  10 

Hempseed   12  1/2  qr.                At  20.y.  qr.  12  10 

Iron   Nails    99  cwt.                     At  30-40j.  cwt.  1,573        5 

Iron  Wrought  . . .  3,354  tons,  1  cwt, 

22  qr.                     At  2/10-3£  cwt.  9,224  14          6 

Lead  and  Shot...  61  ton  4  cwt.  2qr.  OAt  10-11  per  ton     642  17  3 

Leather  Wrought.  7,694  lbs.                  At  2-2/6s.  lb.  865  11          6 

Linen :    9,848  no.  At  30-40  17,234 


*  Customs,  III,  65. 


342 


Smith  Colle;ge;  Studies  in  History 


Eng.  Manufacture  Amount 

British    52,845  yds. 

Irish     204,601  yds. 

Sail    12,780  Ells 

Lithrage    of   lead.  45  cwt.  2:0 

Pewter   826  cwt. 

Pictures  or  Prints  18  cwt.  2  qr. 

Saddles,    Great...  12  No. 

Saddles,   Small    ..  12  No. 

Shovels  Shod 30  doz. 

Silk  in  pieces 7,541  lbs.  1  oz. 

Silk  Stitch,  Sew'g  2,521  lbs.,  9  oz. 

Steel    700  cwt. 

Tobacco  pipes   ...  338  Gross 

Vetures,  Double..  96  no. 

Watches,    Silver..  12  No. 

Clothes  and  Bags.  1,070  no. 

Double    

.Minikins      816 

Single    1,020 

Long    4 

Remnants    100 

Short    1,114  no. 

Spanish     572 

Cottons    920 

Welch  plains   ....  1,500  (4,100) 

Flannel    62,400  Yards 

Frize     1,700   (2,000) 

Kersies    205  no. 

Perfits  and  Serges  440  lbs. 

Stock'g  for  child'n  10  doz. 

Stock'g  for  men..  6,722  doz. 

Stuflfs    293,140  lbs. 

Stuff,  Silk   (Inde)  581  lbs.,  9  oz. 

Stuff,    Silk    worst.  4,474  lbs.,  5  oz. 

Cabinet  ware   .... 

Colours,    painters. 

Cottons,  Linens  . .  46,301  sq.  yds. 

Goods,  several  . . . 

Plate  Wrought   ..  600  oz. 

Plate  Glass  White  26  cwt.  0:7 

Stationery     

Toys    


Cost  Amount  of  the  value 

At  6-18  yds.         2,642  5 

At  6-lSd.  yd.     10,230  1  0 

At  12.f.  639  0  0 

At  7-11  cwt.  20  9         6 

At  3-4i  cwt.        2,891  0  0 

At  25-30  cwt.  27  15 

At  30-40.J.  21 

At  13-17.y.  9 

At  ll-13.y.  lbs.  18 

At  30-40^.  lb.      13,196  17         2 

At  30-40s.  lb.        4,412  14 

At  27-30  cwt.  997  10 

At   I2d.  gross.  16  18 

At  25-30^.  49  10 

At  2:10-5£  45  0         0 

At  3-4£  4,012  10 

At  7-8i  10s.  no.    6,324  0  0 

At  34-35.?.  no.      2,014  10 

At  7-10£  23  5 

At    18-24(f.  lb.  8  15 

At   10-13i  no.     12,811  0  0 

At  4-6i  2,860 

At  5-18£  100  goods  54  5  7 

At  5-6£  100  goods    27  10         0 
At  8-18rf.  yd.        3,380 

At  20-30(/.  yd.         117  1  8 

At  20-50s.  358  15 

At  3-3/6S.  lb.  71  10 

At  4-14.?.  doz.  4  10 

At  24-44.?.  doz.    11,427  8 

At  2-3s.  lb.  36,642  10 

At  2.?.  3/6  lb.  79  19         3 

At  2-3s.  6d.  lb.        615  4         4 
10 

100 
10,417 
46,102 

200 

720 

423  18 
34 


APPENDIX  IV 
PENNSYLVANIA  IMPORTS  AND  EXPORTS,  1702-1763 


Value  of  British 

GocxJs,  Wares 

Value  of  Foreign 

and  Merchan- 

( 

^oods.  Wares  an 

d 

Total  \ 

'alue 

Value  of 

dise  Imported 

Merchandise  ini 

Imports 

Exports 

into  Pa. 

ported  into  Pa. 

into  Pa. 

from  Pa. 

1702 

i2,997 

0^. 

Od. 

£3,347 

Os.  Od. 

1707 

9,342 

0 

0 

4,145 

0 

0 

1712 

14,365 

0 

0 

786 

0 

0 

1717 

8,464 

0 

0 

1,471 

0 

0 

1722 

22,505 

0 

0 

4,499 

0 

0 

1727 

26,397 

0 

0 

6,882 

0 

0 

1732 

31,979 

0 

0 

12,823 

0 

0 

1732 

41,698 

0 

0 

8,524 

0 

0 

1737 

56.690 

0 

0 

15,198 

0 

0* 

1740 

i46,471 

Us. 

9<f.  £10,280 

2s. 

Od. 

56,751 

14 

9 

15,048 

12 

0 

1741 

78,032 

13 

1 

12,977 

18 

10 

91,070 

11 

11 

17,158 

0 

8 

1742 

60,836 

17 

1 

14,458 

5 

3 

75,295 

3 

4 

8,527 

12 

8 

1743 

60,120 

4 

10 

19,220 

1 

6 

79,340 

6 

4 

9,596 

3 

6 

1744 

47,595 

18 

2 

14,618 

8 

4 

62,214 

6 

6 

7,446 

7 

1 

1745 

41,237 

2 

3 

13,043 

8 

8 

54.280 

10 

11 

10,130 

9 

2 

1746 

55,595 

19 

7 

18,103 

12 

7 

73,699 

12 

7 

15,779 

7 

4 

1747 

73,819 

2 

8 

8,585 

14 

11 

82,404 

17 

1 

3,832 

3 

3 

1748 

55,039 

3 

6 

20,291 

1 

4 

75,330 

5 

9 

12,363 

14 

2 

1749 

191,833 

0 

6 

46,804 

2 

4 

238,637 

2 

10 

14,944 

8 

0 

1750 

156,945 

7 

10 

60,767 

13 

0 

217,713 

10 

0 

28,191 

0 

0 

1751 

129,503 

17 

1 

61,413 

8 

0 

190,917 

5 

1 

23.870 

19 

10 

1752 

123,872 

14 

0 

79,794 

5 

11 

201,666 

19 

11 

29,978 

8 

3 

1753 

182,355 

2 

7 

63,289 

11 

4 

245,644 

13 

11 

38,527 

12 

5 

1754 

188,981 

5 

6 

55,666 

9 

2 

244,647 

14 

8 

30,649 

16 

10 

1755 

108,579 

5 

7 

35,877 

1 

7 

144,456 

7 

2 

32,336 

10 

6 

1756 

159,222 

10 

6 

40.947 

9 

3 

200,167 

19 

9 

20,095 

14 

7 

1757 

206,857 

12 

0 

61,568 

14 

6 

268,426 

6 

6 

14,190 

0 

9 

1758 

194,745 

16 

9 

66,207 

14 

4 

260,953 

11 

1 

21,383 

14 

10 

1759 

420,271 

18 

6 

77,889 

6 

9 

498,161 

5 

3 

22,404 

13 

1 

1760 

606,054 

9 

4 

101,944 

2 

8 

707.988 

12 

0 

22,754 

15 

3 

1761 

172,698 

14 

11 

31,368 

7 

4 

204,067 

2 

3 

39.170 

0 

0 

1762 

181,053 

4 

0 

25,146 

14 

8 

206,199 

18 

8 

38,091 

2 

2 

1763 

233,012 

9 

6 

51,140 

6 

6 

284,152 

16 

0 

38,228 

10 

2 

1764 

359,934 

0 

2 

75,257 

3 

10 

435,191 

14 

0 

36,258 

18 

1 

1765 

283,514 

3 

2 

79,854 

15 

2 

363.368 

17 

5 

25,148 

10 

10 

1766 

258,467 

17 

8 

68,846 

7 

7 

327,314 

5 

3 

26,851 

3 

1 

1767 

301,048 

9 

3 

70.781 

19 

7 

375,830 

8 

10 

37.641 

17 

10 

1768 

331,050 

6 

0 

101,057 

11 

4 

432,107 

17 

4 

59,406 

8 

5 

1769 

147,345 

14 

1 

52,564 

3 

10 

199,909 

17 

11 

26,111 

11 

4 

1770 

110,121 

14 

3 

24.760 

1 

2 

134.881 

15 

5 

28,109 

5 

11 

1771 

590,723 

13 

2 

138,021 

6 

8 

728.744 

19 

10 

31,615 

9 

9 

1772 

438,348 

4 

7 

69,561 

9 

5 

507,909 

14 

0 

29,133 

12 

3 

1773 

252,186 
B.  T.  C( 

16 
3mm 

3     101,760 
ercial  Series 

13 
414. 

4      426,448    17 
(Old  number). 

3 

36,652 

8 

9t 

* 

t 

H.  of   L 

.    M 

5S., 

Extract 

from    a 

table   of 

exports 

and    im 

port 

S     0 

England   with  the   North   American   Colonies. 


VITA 

I,  Mary  Alice  Hanna,  was  born  in  Trenton,  Missouri,  July  13,  1886. 
My  father  was  Samuel  C.  Hanna  and  my  mother,  Mary  Lydia  Hanna. 
Upon  the  completion  of  my  secondary  education,  which  I  received  from 
the  Trenton  High  School,  I  entered  the  University  of  Missouri  in  the 
Autumn  of  1905.  I  received  from  that  institution  the  degrees  of  Bachelor 
of  Arts  (1909)  and  Bachelor  of  Science  in  Education  (1911).  For  two 
years  (1909-1911)  I  taught  History  and  Latin  in  the  high  school  of  Van- 
dalia,  Missouri,  and  in  the  Autumn  of  1911  became  a  graduate  student 
at  Bryn  Mawr  College.  In  1912-13  I  held  the  fellowship  in  history  at 
Bryn  Mawr  and  in  the  spring  of  1913  was  awarded  the  Mary  E.  Garrett 
Fellowship  for  a  year  of  study  in  Europe.  The  time  was  spent  as  a 
student  in  the  London  School  of  Economics  and  University  College, 
London,  and  as  a  research  student  in  the  Public  Record  Office  and  the 
British  Museum.  On  my  return  to  America  in  1914  I  was  made  scholar 
in  history  and  fellow  by  courtesy  at  Bryn  Mawr  College.  During  the 
years  1915-17  I  was  head  of  the  history  department  at  the  Schuyler  School 
in  Bryn  Mawr,  Pennsylvania. 

As  a  graduate  student  at  Bryn  Mawr  College  I  attended  the  courses 
given  by  Dr.  William  Roy  Smith,  Dr.  Marian  Parris  Smith,  Dr.  Clarence 
Haring  and  Dr.  James  Miller  Leake.  In  London  I  attended  the  courses 
given  at  University  College  by  Professor  A.  F.  Pollard  and  those  given 
at  the  London  School  of  Economics  by  Dr.  Lilian  Knowles,  Dr.  A.  L. 
Bowley  and  Hubert  Hall,  F.  S.  A.,  Assistant  Keeper  of  the  Public  Records. 

I  am  especially  indebted  to  Dr.  William  Roy  Smith  and  Dr.  Marian 
Parris  Smith,  who  have  directed  me  in  the  pursuance  of  my  graduate 
studies  at  Bryn  Mawr  College. 

My  indebtedness  in  connection  with  this  dissertation  has  been  expressed 
in  the  preface. 


INDEX 


Absenteeism,  280. 

Adams,  G.  B.,  46. 

Admiralty,    see    vice-admiralty. 

Albany  regency,  186  f. 

Albert,    Archbishop    of    Mainz,    18, 

21f. 
Albert,  Duke  of  Prussia,  20. 
Albert  Achilles,  4,  11,  16,  22  f.,  50, 

53,  57. 
Andros,  Edmund,  177. 
Annual  register,  76. 
Appointment,   Council  of,   177-8, 

IBlff. 
Appointment,    Power   of,    150,    159., 

177ff.,  181-88,  199ff.,  207-14. 
Archives  of  Brandenburg,  3,  50. 

Baedeker,  28f. 

Baltimore,    Trade    with,   243. 

Bancroft,  George,  articles  in  North 
American  Review,  70;  early 
life,  67-8;  style  criticized  by 
Sparks,  90,  96,  120ff. ;  transla- 
tions by,  81  ff. 

Bancroft   Manuscripts,   67. 

Barbauld,    Anna    Laetitia,    llOflF. 

Beard,  C.  A.,  quoted,  201-2. 

Berlin,  16f.,  27ff.,  38,  40,  58. 

Black,  Frank  S.,  Governor,  194. 

Brandenburg,  3-64;  see  Hohenzol- 
lern  Household. 

Brown,  Josiah,  277-8. 

Bryce,  James,  quoted,  150. 

Buchholtzer,  G.,  17. 

"Buckstail  faction,"  186. 

Budget,  see  Finance. 

Buttmann's  "Greek  Grammar,"  70, 
71,   115,   117. 

California,  166. 

Cape  Nicola  Mole,  331-2. 

Cattle,  252. 

Certification  of  Ships,  289. 

Chancery,   58. 

"Classical  learning,"  72ff.,  77. 

Clergy  of   Brandenburg,  9,  25,  29f. 

Cleveland,  Grover,  191,  194,  197. 

Clinton,   DeWitt,   184ff.,   189,   193. 


Clinton,   George,   181  ff.,   189. 
"Collectanea    Graeca    Majori,"    98- 

99,  105f.,  110,  113. 
Colonial  act  of  1673,  285. 
Colonization,  6ff.,  32ff.,  260. 
Commissions,  state,  148,   171,  188. 
Connecticut,  161. 
Connecticut  River  Valley,  projected 

article  on,  117,  119,  127,  128. 
Consistoritim,  32. 
Constitutional    Convention,   Albany, 

1915,  203-223. 
Cornbury,  Lord,   177. 
Cornell,  Alonzo  B.,  governor,  194. 
Cosby,  William,  177. 
Customs  Board,  282-85,  324-5. 

Delaware,  159,  168,  169. 

Delaware   district,   isolation   from 
England,   247-8;   trade  bounda- 
ries, 242. 

Dissolution,  power  of,  156-7,  162, 
214. 

Distelmeier,  L.,  52,  56. 

Distilleries,  259. 

Dix,  John  A.,  governor,  194f. 

Droysen,  J.  G.,  5,  20,  28f.,  46. 

East  India  Company,  299-305. 

Edward  II  of  England,  3,  14,  45. 

Efficiency  and  Economy,   Depart- 
ment of,  172,  203,  204,  209. 

Estates  of  Brandenburg,  4  ff.,  con- 
trol over  taxation,  llff.,  compo- 
sition, 29f.,  records,  47ff.,  ap- 
proval of  Household  Ordi- 
nance, 54f. 

Estimates,  Board  of,  216-17. 

Fame    (ship),  270-1. 

Fee  system,  281,  322-3,  329-30. 

Finance,    155-7,    175-6,    180,    197-8, 

200,  215-21,  223-5. 
Fisheries,  256,  262. 
Florida,  166ff. 

Flower,  Roswell  P.,  governor,  194. 
Fliigel's  German  dictionary,  142-3. 
Franklin,   Benjamin,  315-16. 


346 


Smith  ColIvE;ge  Studies  in  History 


Frederick  the  Great,  16. 
Frederick  I  of  Brandenburg,  5. 
Frederick  William ;  see  Great 

Elector. 
Free  trade,  245. 

French   colonies,  trade  with,  288-9. 
Fur  trade,  252. 

Georgia,  I59ff.,  166,  167. 

Germantown,   Pa.,  250. 

Gneist,  R.,  4Sf. 

"Goethe,  Life  and  Genius  of,"  74, 
n,  80ff..  85. 

Goodnow,  Frank  J.,  209. 

Governor,  administrative  power, 
148-9,  181-88,  198-214;  election, 
158-9,  legislative  powers,  173-5, 
188-98;  message,  191-2;  present 
status,  223-26;  term  of  office, 
59,  160,  166,  170;  under  pro- 
posed constitution  of  1915, 
222-3. 

Governors,   colonial,    152-7. 

Grain  trade,  7ff.,  Zm.,  249-51.  264, 
318-20. 

Great  Elector,  4,  6,  9,  39f.,  43. 

Greek  grammars,  Ti. 

"Greek   Lexicography,"   113f.,    116ff. 

Grist  mills,  250. 

Hans,   Markgraf   of   the   Neumark, 

12,  21fif.,  27,  53. 
Harbors   of   Pennsylvania,  267. 
Hass,  M.,  3,  4,  44-54. 
Hazelwood,   Thomas,  271-2. 
Hedwig,    wife    of   Joachim    I,   20f., 

28  31 
Hemans,  Felicia  ,108,  109,  111.  112, 

126. 
Hemp,  254. 

Herder.   "Writings   of,"  88-89. 
Hill,  David  B.,  Governor,  194,  198. 
Hintze,  O.,  4,  44f.,  50. 
Hoffmann,  John  T.,  governor,  194f. 
Hohenzollern,  Electors  of  Branden- 
burg: 
Frederick  I   (1412-1440),  5. 
Albert    Achilles    (1440-1486), 

4,  11,  16,  22ff.,  50,  53,  57. 
Joachim     I     (1499-1535),     12, 
16ff.,  34. 


Joachim    H,     (1535-1531),    3- 

64,   passim. 
John      George       (1571-1598), 

13ff.,  20,  25,  51,  56. 
Great     Elector      (1640-1688), 

4,  6.  9,  39f.,  43. 
Frederick    the    Great     (1740- 
1788),  16. 
Holtze,  F.,  4,  14. 

Household,       Hohenzollern,       cost, 
lOff.,    53,    57-60;    development, 
39-43;  sources,  47-60;  cleavage, 
57-60;    personnel,    61-64;    mar- 
shal, 40f.,  53ff.,  61;  master,  40; 
chamberlains,   40,   61 ;    manager 
of  the  storehouse,  40,  52;  chan- 
cery,   58,    63 ;    Kammergericht, 
37,    42,    44,    48;     Rentei     (ex- 
chequer), 63. 
Household   manufactures,  260,   307. 
Household    Ordinances,    3,   44-64. 
Hughes,  Charles  E.,  governor,  174, 

192f.,  195,  198,  200f.,  216. 
Hunting,  7,  13. 

Illinois,   162. 

Indians,  trade  with,  253. 

Iron,  257f. 

Italy,  101,  102. 

Jacob's  "Greek  Reader,"  71,  73. 

Jacob's  "Latin  Reader,"  93,  97. 

Jagow,  Matthias  von,  27. 

Jay,  John,  182f. 

Joachim  I,  Elector  of  Brandenburg, 

12,  16ff.,  34. 
Joachim    II,    Elector    of    Branden- 
burg: 

Importance,    3-5,    39ff. ;    con- 
flict with  the  estates,  5-14; 
debts,  6-14,  24,  S3 ;  religion, 
14-32;  wives,  19  ff. ;  inheri- 
tance,   21ff.,    peasants,    32- 
39;  Household  Ordinances, 
50-55;  household  personnel, 
55-64. 
Joachim  Friedrich,  51. 
John   George,  Elector   of   Branden- 
burg, 13f.,  20,  25,  51,  56. 
"Joseph  II  of  Austria,"  140-1. 
"Journal   of   a   Tour   in    Italy,"   84, 
87,  100. 


Index 


347 


Kammcrgcricht,  Z7,  42,  44,  48. 
Kentucky,    161  f. 
Klinkenborg,  M.,  4. 
Koser,   R.,  5. 
Kostgeld,  58f.,  63. 

Legislation,  173-4,  188-93. 
Legislative    bodies,    colonial,    153-7, 

177. 
Lutheranism,   14-32. 

Alachiavelli,  15. 

Madeira,  trade  with,  264. 

Maine,  161. 

Manufactures  of  Pennsylvania, 

307-9. 
Marcy,  William  L.,  governor,  193. 
Maryland,   166ff.,  262. 
Massachusetts,   158,  159. 
Maurice  of  Saxony,  15. 
Meech,  Captain,  269-70. 
Melanchthon,  26f.,  31. 
Merchants  of  London,  memorial, 

318-20. 
Merchants  of  New  York,  315-17. 
Militarism,  6. 
Mills'  Hill,  224-225. 
Missouri,  162,  164. 
Molasses  Act,  287f. 
Monasteries,  30,  51. 
Moreland  Act,  216. 
Municipal   Research,   Bureau  of, 

204,  218,  224,  225. 
Mylius,  3,  47flf. 

Navigation  acts,  need  of,  267,  274-5 ; 
act  of  1660,  285  ;  staple  act,  285  ; 
colonial  act,  285 ;  molasses  act, 
287-8 ;  sugar  act,  289-93 ;  stamp 
act,  293-8;  tea  act,  299-305, 
Townshend  act,  298-9. 

Neumark,  see  Hans. 

New  England,  trade  with,  262. 

New  Hampshire,  158ff.,  168. 

New  Jersey,  149,  160,  166. 

New  York   (colony),  154-55,  177. 

New  York,  constitution  of  1777, 
177-8;  1821,  178;  1846,  178; 
1867,  179;  1872,  180,  199;  1894, 
180,  199ff.,  223 ;  1915,  203-23. 

New  York  short  ballot  organiza- 
tion, 202. 

Nobility  in  Brandenburg,  6ff.,  25, 
29f.,  32ff.,  54f.,  61-64. 


Non-importation    associations,    311- 

17. 
North  American  Review,  68ff.,  74ff., 

82ff.,  95f.,   105-6,   109,   111,   126, 

130-1,    135. 
North  Carolina,  153,  169. 
North  Dakota,  176. 
Northampton,  Mass.,  67,  68,  75,  77, 

82,  94,  95,  97,  99,  100,  129. 
Northwest  Ordinance,  162,  163. 
Nova  Scotia,  trade  with,  262. 

Odell,  Benjamin  B.,  governor,   195, 

198. 
Ohio,  163,  166,  167,  169,  175. 
Oregon,  176. 

Pardons,  163,  178. 

Peasantry.  7ff.,  19,  25,  32-39. 

Penn,  John,  324. 

Penn,  William,  256,  268-9,  279. 

Pennsylvania,  159ff.,  164,  167. 

Philadelphia,      242,      244-5,     252-3, 

260-1,  276,  305,  311-8,  325-6. 
Philip  IV  of  France,  3. 
"Physical  Training,"  90ff. 
Pickering.  John,  Greek  and  English 

Lexicon,   113f. 
Popkin,   John    S..  98-99,    105f.,    110, 

113. 
Population  of  Brandenburg,  25. 
Prices,  i6. 

Prince  of  Wales  (ship),  326-9. 
Printing,  Cost  of,  75. 
Prussia,  6.  16,  18,  20,  40,  43. 
Prutz,  H.,  5,  20,  28f. 

Quary,    Robert,   247ff.,   267-8,  276ff. 

Ranke,  L.  von,  28. 
Removal,  power  of,  178,  180. 
Rhode  Island,  168. 
Riedel,  3,  47ff. 

Robinson,   Lucius,   governor,    194. 
Roman  Catholicism,  14-22. 
Roman  Law,  5,  12,  41,  56. 
Roosevelt,  Theodore,  governor,  191, 

192. 
Root,   Elihu,  213. 
Round    Hill    School.    Northampton, 

Mass.,  67,  78,  79,  97,  98. 
Ruby   (ship),  330-2. 

Sage  Hill,  224,  225. 


348 


Smith  Coli.ege  Studies  in  History 


Saxe  amendments,  207-8. 
Schapper,  G.,  4.  45,  50. 
Schiller,  translations  of,  70. 
Schlieben,   Cristoph   von,   51  f.;   Eu- 

stachius  von,  27,  53ff.,  59f. 
Schmoller,  G.,  44. 
Seizures,  278-9,  326-7. 
Serfdom,  35ff. 
Seven  Years  War,  274. 
Sewell,  Jonathan,  322. 
Seward,  William  H.,  186-7,  189,  193. 
Shipbuilding,  254-5. 
Short  ballot,   172,  201-3,  212-3,  214. 
Skinner  council,  185f. 
Smith,  G.  E.,  212,  221. 
Smuggling,  267-72,  320-32. 
"Somerville's    Letters    on    France," 

75  ff.,  84. 
South  Carolina,  149,  158,  166,  168f. 
Spandau,  28. 
Spangenberg,  H.,  4. 
Sparks,  Jared,  early  life,  68-69. 
Sparks,  Jared,  travels,   132-3. 
Sparks  Manuscripts,  67. 
Stamp  act,  293-98. 
Standeakten,  4,  47ff. 
Staple  act  of  1663,  285. 
Steel  mills,  258. 
Stolzel,  A.,  5,  44f. 
Sugar  act  of  1764,  286-92,  298. 
Sulzer,  William,  governor,  203. 

Tanner,  Frederick  C,  211-12,  214. 
Tariff  legislation,  245-6. 
Taxes  in  Brandenburg.  9ff. 
Tea,  duty  on,  299-305. 
Tennessee,   163. 

Thirty  day  bill,  179,  180,  194ff. 
Ticknor,   George,  82ff.,  97. 


Tilden,    Samuel    J.,    governor,    194, 

197. 
Timber   of    Pennsylvania,  253-4. 
Tobacco,  249,  265,  266,  269. 
Tout,  T.  F.,  45. 
Towns  in  Brandenburg,  7ff.,  25,  29f., 

33f{. 
Townshend  act,  298,  299,  304,  315. 
Trade,  bill  for  regulating  in  North 

America,  332. 
Trade  of  Pennsjdvania,  export,  266, 

310;     foreign,    285-93;     import, 

266,     310;     intercolonial,     286; 

southern.  261. 
Tuttle,  H.,  46. 

"Undine,"  74,  75. 

Van  Buren,  Martin,  185f.,  189. 

Vermont,    161. 

Veto,  150,  156,  158,  160ff.,  165ff.,  173, 

175,  177,  179,  180,  193-8,  208. 
Vice-Admiralty,  276-82,  329-30. 
Virginia,  154,  168,   169. 

Watterson,  George,  "Course  of 
study  preparatory  to  the  Bar 
and  the  Senate,"  78-79. 

Weed,  Thurlow,  187. 

Weights   and  measures,   38f. 

West  Indian  trade,  262-3,  286-8. 

Whitman,  Charles  S.,  224-5. 

Wilson,  Woodrow,   174. 

Wine  trade,  264-5. 

Wool  trade,  259,  307-8. 

Worcester,  J.  E.,  "Elements  of 
Geography,"  76. 

Worcester,  J.  E..  "Sketches  of  the 
Earth,"  73,  76fi. 

Yates,  Joseph,  governor,  186,  193. 


V^* 


W-1 


>S^'i 


^ 
s 


1 


